"...Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved,..." Card. Kasper

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In their relations with Jews, Christians cannot conceal the strong missionary dimension of their faith, but also must recognize that Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved, a top Vatican official said.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, said Nov. 6 that Christians take a different missionary approach toward Jews than toward followers of other non-Christian religions.

That's because Christians and Jews share a long biblical and religious tradition, a belief in the same God and a conviction that God will complete human history, he said.

The main difference between the two faiths -- the salvific role of Jesus Christ -- must also be acknowledged, he said.

"The universality of Christ's redemption for Jews and gentiles is so fundamental throughout the entire New Testament ... that it cannot be ignored or passed over in silence," Cardinal Kasper said.

"This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God's promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God's plan, which for us comes to historical completion in Jesus Christ," he said.

Cardinal Kasper spoke at the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College. His text was made available to Catholic News Service by his office at the Vatican.

The cardinal's comments came amid increasing debate in the United States over the church's missionary attitude toward Jews. Last summer, Catholic and Jewish participants in a national dialogue issued a document that repudiated campaigns that target Jews for conversion, prompting criticism by some Christian leaders.

Cardinal Kasper said he wanted to "take the bull by the horns" and discuss the sensitive issue of mission -- in part, he said, because Christian-Jewish dialogue must look honestly at the hardest questions.

He said he recognized that the topic of mission evokes bitter memories among Jews because of forced conversions in the past.

"We sincerely reject and regret this today," he said. He noted that the Catholic Church now condemns all means of coercion in matters of faith.

But mission must be discussed, because it is a key concept for the Christian faith and part of the Christian identity, he said.

"We cannot cancel it, and if we should try to do so, it would not help the Jewish-Christian dialogue at all. Rather, it would make the dialogue dishonest and ultimately distort it," he said.

"If Jews want to speak to Christians, they cannot demand that Christians no longer be Christians," he said.

He said substituting the historically loaded word "mission" with another term like "evangelization" or "witness" may be helpful to Jewish-Christian dialogue, but will not by itself resolve the problem, which touches upon the very identities of both religions.

Cardinal Kasper pointed out that Christians and Jews share the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament; the common figures of Abraham, Moses, patriarchs and prophets; the covenant and promises of a unique God; and a messianic hope.

Because of all that, "mission understood as a call to conversion from idolatry to the living and true God does not apply and cannot be applied to Jews," he said.

That has tangible consequences, including the fact that there is "no Catholic missionary activity toward Jews as there is for all other non-Christian religions," he said.

Both religions open toward the future and the hope of fulfillment that God alone can bring, he said. But while Jews still expect the coming of the Messiah, Christians believe he has come as Jesus and will be revealed at the end of time as the Messiah for Jews and for all nations, he said.

While it may be painful for Jews to listen to such professions of Christian faith, it is inevitable in honest dialogue, the cardinal said.

"Our Jewish friends may say, as they do: 'You look on us with your Christian eyes.' Yes, we do, and how could we do otherwise? Jews, too, look on us with their eyes and out of the perspective of their faith," he said.

"We must endure and withstand this difference, because it constitutes our respective identities," he said.

Cardinal Kasper said that while Christians cannot "remain silent on our hope in Jesus" it is not a question of "targeting" Jews or others for conversion. For modern Christians, evangelization is accomplished primarily by living the faith and "giving testimony of Jesus Christ to all and in all places," he said.

That cannot be renounced by Christians, even though this testimony is undertaken differently in relations with Jews, he said.

Cardinal Kasper said the question of mission will ultimately be resolved in the context of a Christian theology of Judaism. The church is only at the beginning of this process, which began with the Second Vatican Council, he said.

"The long period of anti-Judaistic theology cannot be overcome in only 40 years," he said.

Fourth Lateran Bump

Oh, that's very nice. You are in favor of these canons?

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
Canons on Jews

CANON 67

Summary. Jews should be compelled to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings to churches, which the Christians supplied before their properties fell into the hands of the Jews.

Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

CANON 68

Summary. Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.

Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

[Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday. Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]

CANON 69

Summary. Jews are not to be given public offices. Anyone instrumental in doing this is to be punished. A Jewish official is to be denied all intercourse with Christians.

Text. Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans. [Mansi, IX, 995; Hefele-Leclercq, III, 7.27. This canon 14 of Toledo was frequently renewed.]

CANON 70

Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.

Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296.

Why would those edicts make you doubt the saving power of Christ? Medieval Christendom wasn't a melting pot, a diverse society, or a Jacobin egalité regime -- it was a Christian society, de jure et de facto. Americans who are indoctrinated with the ideals of our secular, Enlightenment, humanistic culture are apt to gasp in shock at the very idea of elevating one religion above all others, but in those days the religious and governmental authorities were unafraid to acclaim Christianity as the one, true religion. Just as the worship of the goddess Liberty is our national faith today, so was the worship of Christ in the era of Christendom, and people of that age were no more "evil" for jealously guarding the Catholic Faith than we are for guarding our freedom. Just as we treat those outside our civic religion (illegal aliens, Moslems, communists, fascists, etc.) with prudent suspicion, those who were outside of the Christian faith and culture -- not only Jews, but Moslems, pagans, and other nonbelievers -- were considered aliens, interlopers, and/or parasites, and rightfully so. To condemn them is to condemn the very idea behind every true culture: the idea of identity, of Us and Them.

Were there excesses, horrors, crimes? Yes. But the same is true of every place and time in human history; let the culture without sin cast the first stone. In any case, allowing the actions of men to separate one from the love of Christ is a mistake. Truth is Truth, no matter what men say or do, and no bishop, cardinal, or even pope can contradict anything that the Church has taught. Such teaching is sui generis error; to teach error (i.e. to contradict the established teachings of the Church) is proof that the teacher does not possess the charism of infallibility and, therefore, cannot be considered a binding authority by believers. The pope that contradicts the dogmas of the Church is not the true pope.

"Fourth Lateran Bump"
Oh, that's very nice. You are in favor of these canons?

Actually, I was only thinking of "Extra Ecclesiam, nulus salus" as a Catholic doctrine which Cardinal Kasper, et al. had forgotten.

Those canons concern not unchanging dogma, but prudential judgments made by the council in 1215. I believe that they were not codified out of malice, but out of concern for real problems at the time, and by early-13th century standards are humanistic.

69. If the law says that the Catholic Church is the official state religion, then provision was made that government authorities should be Catholic.

70. Apparently some sincerely baptised Jewish converts would continue practicing Jewish rituals alongside Catholic rituals. The council said they shouldn't mix the religions together.

67. The council was concerned that some moneylenders were charging such usurious interest rates that the lendees couldn't make a tithe to the local church. I'm not surprised they were concerned about this.

69a. Apparently men and women were falling in love and getting married to each other, only to discover after the wedding that one was Jewish and one was Catholic. In a typical medieval manner the council declared that the non-Catholics should dress differently.

69b. Apparently on Passion Sunday and during the Good Friday - Easter weekend, some non-Catholic smart alecks would mock the public devotions, and riots would predictably ensue. (I imagine that the non-Catholic minorities probably fared badly during the riots.) The council has a simple and absolute medieval solution: to keep the peace, all non-Catholics must remain indoors.

69c. (Schroeder's note) Catholics were forbidden by law to work on Sunday (and Holy Days). If they worked, they could be arrested and punished. Jews and Muslims, of course, would work on Sundays. The Synod of Narbonne said they should be discreet about it, and wear an emblem of their faith, showing that they had permission to work.

Did sinful men abuse the canons? Yes.

The Romans had no qualms about executing anyone they thought might disturb their rule.

It was King Herod who was concerned about his rule as "King of the Jews." He and his cronies used the Romans to get what they wanted: the elimination of Jesus of Nazareth. The Romans had nothing against Jesus, but they gave in to the demands of the Jews to crucify Him. The Jews commissioned the Romans to do the execution because they had no "death penalty" in their own law.

From John's account:

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death...(John 18:31)

Pilate therefore went forth again and saith unto them, Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him... (John 19:4)

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.(John 19: 6)

"The Jews" did not do this. Certain individuals did it.

Not all of the Jews did this. Some of them believed in His words and wept at His feet as He was nailed to the cross.

You're right, not all Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. My apologies for generalizing. The article speaks in generalities, and so did I.

At any rate, I was using an example to point out the inconsistencies posed by the Cardinal's stance. As I understand Christianity, anyone who believes in Christ is saved; anyone who "rejects" Him goes to hell. Why should "an exception to the rule" be made for the Jews?

As a Jew, you may find the salvation issue amusing since you probably consider it irrelevant anyway. But for Christians, it is the main thing they have to offer. Why should "salvation" be doled out to people who fail to meet the basic qualifications: Belief in Christ and acceptance of Him as Savior? Might as well give it to the Buddhists and Hindus. None of their people "rejected" Christ by literally having him killed.

Sure, someone had to do it. That was the plan. The Jews played a part in it. Neverthless, the Jews can also be "saved" just like everyone else, but they must still meet the basic requirements: accept Jesus as their Savior.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.