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.
So saith the gospel accounts. As I have stated previously, I do not unquestionably accept these accounts as objective history.
The Romans had nothing against Jesus, but they gave in to the demands of the Jews to crucify Him.
This is the "spin" (for lack of a better word) that the gospels put on the story. When the gospel of John was written, it behooved the Christians to distance themselves from the Jews and absolve the Romans of responsibility.
My apologies for generalizing.
Thank you, I appreciate it.