Constantine’s Sword Strikes Target
The Catholic Church does not fair well in Oren Jacoby’s adaptation of James Carroll’s book, “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.”
I highly recommend seeing it.
To be sure, at times, Jacoby overreaches…and some of it doesn’t all add up, in the off chance than any of you – like me — aren’t as well versed in Christianity as you are in Judaism. I missed some things…like the exact importance of the robe of Jesus. But most of it is all too clear, and as someone with a limited background, I found much of it fascinating.
Did you know Constantine–the man who converted Rome to Christianity–killed his own son?
Carroll nails it when he denounces Pope Benedict’s claim that Nazism was created by “neo-paganism.” Rather, Carroll explains, while this is partially true, Nazism had “two parents,” the other being the Catholic Church.
Additionally, Carroll demonstrates all too clearly how even if maybe you can’t quite say that Pious was “Hitler’s pope,” you can certainly say he was “Hitler’s cardinal.” Unbelievable.
Other great exposes include Ted Haggard’s success in using the United States Air Force Academy as an essentially officially recognized recruiting safari for his specific fundamentalist mega church. And yes, we are talking about THE Ted “I like it in the ass and I’m willing to pay for it” Haggard. The film also covers resistance to Haggard and the evangelical control and harassment of resistors, including Mikey Weinstein and his son.
Overall, if you had any doubts as to the importance of the reinstatement of “The Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews,” well, this should make you realize that it is indeed problematic. The ADL is actually right. I guess when you bark at everyone who walks by you eventually end up barking at someone who deserves it.
42 comments
Just a heads-up, the Catholic Church presented the only unified domestic opposition to Nazi Germany on the non-Jewish religious scale and on a general scale the second one next to the KPD (German Communist Party); by its theology, Catholicism feels a constant need to challenge political authorities, and the Catholic Church in official appeals discoraged Catholics from voting for the NSDAP (to be more precise, the Church even stated that party membership / voting for the Nazis and affiliation with Catholicism were mutually exclusive and party membership led to excommunication). Bishops like Faulhaber (Munich-Freising) and Galen were renowned for their anti-Nazi position; the former repeatedly pointed out that Christianity developed out of Judaism and that therefore Christians are responsible for Jews. If you look at the voting patterns, you’ll see that in predominantly Catholic areas, the Nazis did quite poorly, generally below one-digit percentages as opposed to the Protestant areas, where Nazi votes made up around 80%. This can also be explained theologically, as Luther and Melanchton (the initial reformers) insisted on the acceptance of state authority; eventually, worldly leaders (e.g. dukes) became bishops of the Protestant churches. Certainly, the Catholic Church could have been gone beyond what they did, but to portray them as a source of Nazism is historically absolutely incorrect. Hierarchies were beaten into Germans by (Protestant) Prussians (William II, Bismarck). People that chose to remain members of the Catholic Church lost jobs and partly also ended up in death camps.
As for that prayer, a religion that doesn’t believe itself to be the right one would be pretty pointless. Christianity per se is a missionary religion, but it has only been the Catholic Church (John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation of Faith and later Pope) that has officially exempted Jews from missionary attempts.
I’m saddened that people apparently still consider Catholicism the whipping boy of anything that has gone wrong in history even if through actual documents (BTW, any scholar with a letter of recommendation from their faculty can access the “secret archives” of the Vatican; “secret” only means “not out there in the public square” just as in “secretary” and nt as in “hidden”) serious historians have proved many of the claims wrong. A little hitorical honesty would be nice.
As for Constantine killing his own son, that was pretty common in Ancient times. I’d have to look up the specifics about Constantine, but many a political leader then secured his position by removing prospective usurpers. You should really come here someday; I’d show you Constantine’s palace hall in Trier.
“As for that prayer, a religion that doesn’t believe itself to be the right one would be pretty pointless”
Fine, but they have a prayer actually dedicated and called the The Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.”
It’s not actually called that, it has been labelled that by the press.
It’s just an old prayer that’s part of the Tridentine (= Latin) rite, which most congregations don’t use, and since a few congregations use this rite, the Vatican thought the prayer should be changed. It expresses the hope that Jews will convert, it doesn’t persist they must and it doesn’t ask churchgoers to go and preach. In contrast to what goes on in Evangelical settings, even the original version of that prayer sounded harmless. The fuss about that prayer seems pretty much out of proportion to me, particularly since several Jewish scholars have by now explained what it means, how it should be read etc. You don’t see gay rights groups getting all riled up more or less constantly over traditional Jewish views on homosexuality, do you?
If you want to read the Church’s official view on Judaism in a brief document, read Nostra Aetate, chapter 4. I’ll give you the link.
This is the English translation: http://www.vatican.va/archive/.....te_en.html
The Latin text oif you want to compare: http://www.vatican.va/archive/.....te_lt.html
by its theology, Catholicism feels a constant need to challenge political authorities.
… And by its actual practice in centuries of systematic European dehumanization of the Jews, Catholicism was the political authority. Without that, there would have been no Holocaust, period.
EV, there’s a gap between the wrongdoings of individual adherents to a faith and the theology of that faith. Note when the Reformation came about, which resulted in what we perceive the Catholic Church and various Protestant Churches today. The Catholic Church has been critical of its (the general Christian Church then) role in anti-Semitic persecutions (I even got to teach a class on medieval blood libel and well-poisoning accusations and forgeries as a structural element of anti-Semitism at a Catholic faculty here - imagine that) , and then look into changes in society due to the Renaissance etc. There are historians that claim that in a Catholic state, the Nazis would never have risen to power. There have been anti-Semites among Catholics, but a serious look into Catholic-Jewish relations during medieval today-Germany will also tell you that Catholic bishops (that by far not had the far-reaching powers then as they have now) let Jewish refugees into their courts fleeing angry mobs and spoke out against the persecution of Jews and alleged blood miracles. Catholicism had no effective political power in Germany for ages preceeding the Holocaust (read up on Napoleon’s Code Civil and de facto secularization and Bismarck’s ‘Kulturkampf’) other than making recommendations for its congregants while those in power and that also remained in power were Protestant.
But without planting the seeds — promulgating a religion and way of life that not only perceived but implemented laws forcing the dehumanization and systematic expulsion and murder of Jews for the crime of Deicide — the Nazi menace could not have sprouted as it did. One could argue that the great philo-Semite Martin Luther changed everything for the Church, but the soil had already been set and fertilized for hundreds and hundreds of years. Also, you’re confining your remarks to Germany, whereas the Holocaust — like the Church itself — was a pan-European phenomenon.
Uhmm, EV, Luther is a renowned anti-Semite that went as far as purposely translating the Christian gospels in a way that would cast a negative light on Jews. Also, his book “Die Juden und ihre Lügen” (= The Jews and their lies) singled him out as the most openly anti-Semite Christian theologian to that date. The expulsions (Rintfleisch and Armleder as well as Hugh of Lincoln, I suppose you’re referring to), while motivated by allegedly religious reasons, were neither promoted nor endorsed by the official Church (which actually condemned them) but rather secular folks (empoverished knights in the first two cases, the British Sovereign in the latter case). I’ll agree with you that the Holocaust wasn’t only confined to Germany; Eastern European Jewry even suffered higher losses than German Jewry percentagewise, but again, it was not endorsed by the Catholic Church. The Church certainly would have been better off at that time with a Pope that hadn’t been of such a contemplative and diplomatic personality. But please consider what many Protestants’ response over here to John Paul II’s apology for the Church not taking enough action against the Holocaus was, “We don’t have a pope. So there’s no one who will apologize on our behalf.” Also, as Prof. em. Meier Shwartz (HUJI) said, when Jewish parents in the moral parts of Germany had to decide whether to send their kids to a Catholic or a Protestant school, they’d typically send them to a Catholic school - as they would not learn anything wrong there. Deicide was largely focused on in Protestant teaching (and in ´the one or the other denomination still is).
This could take a few hours of explanations; if you’re willing to meet up, I should be in NYC again in the summer.
more rural parts of Germany*
Froylein,
You just rocked my socks. And this;
“As for that prayer, a religion that doesn’t believe itself to be the right one would be pretty pointless.”
Amen, sister. We Jews get all uppity when somebody from outside of the tribe says that we’re “denying the light”, or any number of other cliches. Ann Coulter thinks that we need to be “perfected”. Would she be genuine in her Christianity if she didn’t? I think she’s kind of a Kook that needs a better stylist; It’s my prerogative to reject her opinion, which I do. I also respect her rejection of the over-eager, namby-pamby, PC police who condemn people for speaking their mind. If the Catholics want to pray for us to start seeing things their theological way, can you blame them? Don’t we (Halakhic Jews) do the same thing, praying to turn the world upside down with our Noahide laws?
By the way- learned alot from that mini essay you posted in comment #1.
Woops. Wow, I’m such a religious Zionist that I spell ‘kook’ with an uppercase “K”.
Uhmm, EV, Luther is a renowned anti-Semite that went as far as purposely translating the Christian gospels in a way that would cast a negative light on Jews.
I know. I was being sarcastic in response to your remark “Note when the Reformation came about, which resulted in what we perceive the Catholic Church and various Protestant Churches today” — which I understood (wrongly?) as implying that the Church during the time of Hitler was a less anti-Semitic Church than that which had preceded the Reformation.
Again, I think you’re confining your response to a specific place and time (mentioning specific expulsions), whereas I am talking about the centuries-long institution of hatred exemplified but by no means limited to the laws promulgated in the Fourth Lateran Council. If you want to bring up expulsions alone, I don’t know if Kelsey has enough bandwidth. But I’d be happy to elucidate on this and all matters in NYC this summer.
PS: “The moral parts of Germany” was a slip your Viennese predecessor would have enjoyed.
Sorry, I only type with one finger, two fingers if I need caps, so I make more typos than I like.
BTW, the expulsions were ones that spread all over Europe. Depending on the airline (140lbs are free on Singapore Airlines, but I tend to max those) and how much stuff I’m taking, I might bring some reading material.
I’ll give you a list of a dozen or so titles to read in advance. It’ll make things easier.
How good’s your German?
I only know the words used by advancing Gestapo officers and their little priestly helpers.
Did your parents not tell you not to watch so much TV?
It’s mostly the comics and pulp.
That’s unfortunate. I’ll start wearing a comics-n-pulp awareness ribbon.
Sarah/froylein, the prayer for Jewish conversion is more than a mere reflection of a religion’s truth claims. It is a symbol of 2,000 years of Christian triumphalism and supercessionism, of the Church saying to the Jews, “We’re here now, so you can just ack up and go home. Oh, and believe as we do - or burn forever in a lake of fire.” Two millennia of Christians telling us that we’ve misunderstood and misinterpreted texts that we wrote in the first place - with or without divine inspiration. It isn’t a general prayer for the conversion of the world (which is what we have in our liturgy); it’s directed specifically at us, the “perfidious” Jews (yes, I know they aren’t planning on reinserting that term). This is part of the reason John XXIII wanted to have it removed in the first place.
The current pope was previously the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the latter day incarnation of the Inquisition. In that capacity, as John Paul’s chief enforcer and architect of the Church’s resurgent conservatism, he ruined countless lives, both directly and indirectly. He has made it clear in the past that he is opposed to most if not all of the reforms of Vatican II, and he has the potential to reverse every advance the Church has managed to make during the past fifty years - including it’s more magnanimous view of us and our benighted religion.
(In addition, he resembles Darth Sidious and frightens small children!)
I’ve seen Constantine’s Sword twice here in Boston. The film deals with militant religion from a number of perspectives - the history of Christian antisemitism, the development of the Religious Right, and the story of the Church in the later half of the twentieth century, its liberalization and subsequent return to conservatism, as seen through the eyes of Jim Carrol, a former priest turned journalist.
I’ve also met Jim; we have mutual acquaintances. A very nice man. If anyone has the opportunity to attend a screening at which he will be speaking, by all means do so.
I don’t think DK included the film’s website: http://constantinessword.com/
The film was quite good on its own, but is a mere shadow of the book, which was excellent. I highly recommend it to both Jews and Christians, and anyone else.
cipher, please name the constitutions of Vaticanum II Benedict XVI wants to see undone. I don’t know of any, and I’ve even read them all. He even emphasized the continuation and deepening of Jewish - Catholic relationships as started off by his predecessor. There are many Christian texts, in the gospels / Acts / letters as well that first are addressed at Jews - since Christians from the start felt a somewhat spiritual responsibility for those that make up their roots, so to speak. Christians could as well say, “Look at those Jews! Still not getting it!” (Pretty common among Evangelicals and all kinds of ‘charismatic’ denominations BTW.) Puritans didn’t even consider Jews to be humans - their human rights were only extended to white Protestant males. Buddhism (which is a philosophy, not a religion) looks down upon Judaism and any other religion that has got a concept of a supreme being and considers their adherents backwards. Also, in between phases of persecution were phases of relatively peaceful coexistence and cultural exchange. Many Jewish traditions are adaptions of heathen / Christian traditions Jews had encountered in the Rhineland, where most Ashkenazi Jews originally settled, and where - under Constantine even (just to mention the Edict of) - Milan) - they at many times enjoyed enough religious liberty to stay. There were persecutions, and they were horrible, but they were not all initiated by the Church or the faith but by motivators such as greed. I can understand if people still hold a grudge, to say the least, but grudges shouldn’t appear in the world of academia.
He’s made it clear in the past that he is opposed to the reforms of Vatican II as a whole. Specific ones, I can’t tell you. He’s demonstrated that he’s regressive enough to reverse them all, given enough time. As I said - as head of (what is still, essentially) the Inquisition, he ruined a lot of lives. He isn’t a nice man, I don’t like him and I don’t trust him.
Also, of course much of the NT is addressed to Jews; they made up the bulk of the audience in the early years, especially before Paul came on the scene - and, yeah, most of it was, “The Jews don’t get it.”
Now, Buddhism - that is something I happen to know a little about. As DK knows, last year I finished a three-year stint as Property Manager at a Tibetan center. A number of things:
1. People say that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion, but it isn’t strictly true. It encompasses a vast and richly complex body of philosophical work, equal in sophistication to Western philosophy (and, according to some scholars, surpassing it); however, it is a religion - a lot of it is based on faith. There is a pantheon of higher beings and there are practices for requesting their assistance; also, much of it has to do with the nature of the afterlife and on how to secure a favorable place in it.
2. You’re right, the idea of a personal creator is antithetical to Buddhist teaching, and they tend to think of it as primitive. However, there are Buddhist texts that talk of a “primordial mind” or ground of being out of which all conditioned phenomena, including ourselves, arise. It’s extremely similar to Kabbalah, as well as to Vedanta (Indian non-dualistic philosophy). Westerners don’t get exposed to this much.
3. In practice, Asian Buddhists (Westerners are another matter) aren’t condescending to Judaism. In fact, they’re rather intrigued by it. It isn’t lost upon them that many of their students are Jews; also, the Tibetans are aware that the Dalai Lama has many Jewish friends, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist. They’re also interested in it because it’s a Western religion that doesn’t proselytize. I’ve been asked questions about Judaism numerous times by lamas and monks. Most of the Jews they meet are Buddhists; the few who aren’t are usually rabbis they meet at interfaith conferences and the like, and there isn’t much time to talk. They don’t often get to talk to a Jew who is reasonably knowledgeable, and who isn’t a Buddhist. I’ve found myself in something of an ambassadorial capacity, and I’ve done my best to explain. In particular, the Tibetans have been very interested to learn that Judaism has an esoteric tradition; I’ve described it to them as “Jewish tantra”. One day I heard the lama with whom I was living telling one of his monks who was visiting, “Of all religions, Jewish religion is most like Buddhism!” Actually, I’d tried to explain that Lurianic Kabbalah is more like Vedanta than it is like Buddhism - but I didn’t press the point!
I’ve been involved with Buddhism and with Buddhists for about thirty years, although I never became one. I have issues with the belief system, but, on the whole, I’ll take it over Christianity any day!
(DK - Could you please make this data entry area larger? I can’t follow what I’m typing!)
Cipher, you wrote,
“However, there are Buddhist texts that talk of a “primordial mind” or ground of being out of which all conditioned phenomena, including ourselves, arise. It’s extremely similar to Kabbalah, as well as to Vedanta (Indian non-dualistic philosophy). Westerners don’t get exposed to this much.”
Can you explain this? Or do you have links that explain this?
In Mahayana Buddhist philosophy (the larger of the two remaining forms of Buddhism, the form to which Tibetan Buddhism and Zen belong) there is a doctrine known as Trikaya, which holds that a Buddha manifests as three kayas, or bodies. The most refined form is the Dharmakaya, which is sometimes described as being the source of all phenomena, similar to the concept of Ein Sof in Kabbalah, or of Brahman in Indian religion (I don’t really like the term “Hinduism”).
I’ve been told that some of the lamas shy away from this, as anything that would seem to refer to a creator god makes them uncomfortable - although it may simply be that they worry that if they expose students to these concepts before they’re ready, they’ll misunderstand or will attempt to impose a monotheistic framework. I don’t think this has as much to do with Western religion as it has to do with their old arguments with the Indian sages, centuries ago (I’m inferring this from conversations I’ve had with them that I won’t go into here, but I’ll be happy to discuss with you privately, if you like).
Here is a Wikipedia article that can explain it a little more fully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakaya
Also, a couple of quotes that I have on hand:
God (theos) is conceived as being outside the cosmic process; he creates it ‘out of nothing’ and can destroy it at will. The Buddha, on the other hand, is the self-realization and self-expression of the cosmos. Since there is only one cosmic process, one Law (Dharma), so there can be only one self-realization of the one truth — one Eternal Original Buddha (Hombutsu). There may be buddhas by the billions, but they are all emanations of the Original Buddha. His unexcelled perfect Enlightenment (Anuttara samyak sambodhi) transcends the cosmos. - Daniel B. Montgomery, Fire in the Lotus
This one is a little more esoteric:
We also speak of the three kaya: The Dharmakaya, or Truth Body; the Sambhogakaya, or Enjoyment body; and the Nirmanakaya, or Emanation Body. The last two — the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya — emerge from the space of the knowledge of the Dharmakaya, the absolute plane, symbolized by the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, whose blue color is the sign of his immutability. We bathe here in the light of Samantabhadra, whose feminine aspect is Samantabhadri. Samantabhadra represents the primordial aspect linked to great joy, and Samantabhadri the aspect of Primordial purity, the counterpart of Samantabhadra.
When we speak of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri, we do not consider them to be creator gods. It is from their space of knowledge and gnosis that samsara and nirvana became manifest and appeared. Dalai Lama, Beyond Dogma
Looking through my hard drive, here’s something else I found. Excerpt from an article by Alex Berzin, a Jewish Buddhist scholar, about Islamic-Buddhist dialogue. I originally got it off of the website of Thubten Chodron, a Jewish Buddhist nun:
Historically, Islamic law has accepted Buddhism as a “religion of the Book.” Because “Dharma” was translated as “law,” and “law” referred to “book,” Buddhists as “people of the Dharma” were understood to be “people of the Book” throughout medieval Central Asia. Islam tolerates all “people of the Book,” which is defined as people who accept a creator God. This leads to some interesting discussions on the meaning of “creator God.”
For example, the primarily Muslim state of Indonesia officially permits five religions–Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism and Buddhism–on the grounds that they all accept a creator God. In this regard, Indonesian Buddhists posit Adibuddha, the primordial Buddha of the Kalachakra Tantra, as the “creator.” I had several interesting discussions with Buddhist monks in Indonesia about the issue of God in Buddhism. Since Adibuddha can be interpreted as the clear light primordial consciousness, and since all appearances of samsara and nirvana are the play or “creation” of that mind, we concluded that it could be said that Buddhism accepts a “creator God.” The fact that Buddhism asserts Adibuddha not to be an individual, separate being who created the universe, but something present in each sentient being, can be seen as a theological difference concerning the nature of God. That is, Buddhism does accept a “creator God” but with its own unique interpretation. As the Muslims say, “Allah has many names,” and many Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Jewish thinkers assert that God is abstract and present in all beings. Establishing this allowed for a comfortable dialogue with Islamic theologians to ensue.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has had contact with Islamic leaders around the world for many years. In 1995, I accompanied Dr. Tirmiziou Diallo, the hereditary Sufi religious leader of Guinea, West Africa, to Dharamsala to meet with His Holiness. In the days prior to the audience, Dr. Diallo and I discussed further the meaning of “people of the Book.” He felt it refers to people who follow the “primordial tradition.” This can be called the wisdom of Allah or God, or as I suggested to him in Buddhist terms, primordial deep awareness. Thus he readily accepted that the primordial tradition of wisdom was revealed not only by Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, but also by Buddha. If people follow this innate primordial tradition and wisdom, they are “people of the Book.” But if they go against this basic good and wise nature of humankind and the universe, they are not “of the Book.”
In this sense, then, he found it acceptable to say that Buddha was a “prophet of God.” Adibuddha, as the clear light mind, is not only primordial deep awareness, but the creator of all appearances. In this way, Adibuddha can be said to be a “creator God.” Similarly, because Buddha spoke about the primordial deep awareness, he can be said to be a “prophet of God.” For Westerners who became Buddhist after leaving the Judeo-Christian tradition they grew up in, using this language to describe Buddha may seem strange. However, when we remember that one word can have different interpretations and definitions in various traditions, this use of language could make sense. Practically speaking, it enhances the prospect of interreligious dialogue, which is so necessary in our day and age.
Cipher, in religious studies (that’s where I come from) Buddhism is considered a philosophy and not a religion because of its denial of deities; faith isn’t a criterion there as there’s no gauge for it. Anyhow, I’m aware there are “hybrids” / “fusions” / “mixes” of Buddhism with Hinduism or smaller cults of indigenous people which have brought about the concept of deities among nominally Buddhists e.g. in Cambodia (as is reflected in the artwork of the Khmer Rouge). For the sake of comparison though, it’s helpful to stick to the purist concept of matters - just as a pork-eatig Jew should lead an outsider to deduct that the consumption of pork is permissable in Jewish doctrine. Also, I’d refer back to a purist version of the faith as opposed to an adapted / Westernized version when it comes to interdisciplinary observations. In addition, one should always ask cui bono = who benefits from it?; in this case the shmoozing up.
should not lead*
BTW, the Pope is not in the legal position according to the Codex Iuris Canonici to change ‘constitutiones’ by the council of cardinals; Ratzinger certainly is more traditional than what many enjoy, but as far as I can tell, and I follow announcements from the Vatican closely, he hasn’t made any move or expression that would aim at making changes brought about by Vaticanum II undone. The Congregation of Faith indeed technically is the successor of the Inquisition*, but it’s not a dungeon but rather a place where some of Catholicism’s most outstanding scholars get together to work out guidelines on questions of faith. Carol Woytila didn’t possess the academic finesse that Ratzinger does, and rumour has it that the election of Ratzinger as Pope was meant to put the Church back in line after a few decades of assumed theological liberty (John Paul II may have been more amiable than Benedict XVI, but religiously he was even stricter and more of a hardliner than his successor but in a more spiritualized way, which is typical of Polish Catholicism as opposed to the scholarly, in his days as a professor deemed progressive, extremely humble (he’d go to lectures by bycicle; he asked car manufacturers that typically give gift of fancy cars to the Pope to rather donate the money to a charitable cause in developing countries etc.) Ratzinger).
*Ironically enough, the Inquisition was initially out to “liberate” the Hiberian Peninsula from Islam and applied techniques many a MOT would cheerfully applaud these days.
Sarah,
I’m sorry; I’m not giving in on this one. I’ve read too many accounts of heresy trials, people not being able to confront their accusers, and, as I keep saying, lives in general being ruined by the Congregation under Ratzinger’s administration. And, when you say that Ratzinger’s election was meant to “put the Church back in line after a few decades of assumed theological liberty”, what I hear (if I’m understanding you correctly) is that it is precisely because he is a regressive influence that he was elected in the first place.
I’m aware that Ratzinger was considered progressive in his younger days. I’ve read that he and Kung knew each other in their youth, that he was on the left and Kung was on the right, but that each moved gradually to the opposite pole. My understanding is that Ratzinger was responsible for Kung being forbidden to teach theology in Catholic universities (is that still the case?).
BTW, I came across this joke:
Karl Rahner, Hans Kung and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.
St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them to discuss their views on various issues.
He then points at Rahner and says “Karl! In my office…” After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out of St. Peter’s office. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.
St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung’s direction and “Hans! You’re next…” After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of God.
Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Cardinal Ratzinger, “Joseph, your turn.” TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, apparently exhausted, saying “Oh God, that’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done…”
Re: Buddhism -
I’m aware that there is a difference between Buddhist philosophy and the beliefs and practices of common people, but I’m not talking about hybridized versions of Buddhism. The idea of the Adibuddha, or primordial Buddha, being the source of all phenomena if from Tantric and philosophical texts (I’ve been told that there is at least one source that also identifies this “original Buddha” with Amitabha, but don’t ask me to find it!)
I’ve been complaining for years that Buddhists like to tout the fact that the Buddha supposedly said, “Don’t take anything on faith, even the things I tell you”, but then, you come up against the teachings on karma and rebirth, and then - guess what? You have to have faith in the Buddha’s awakening, as well as the accuracy of the reporting. A couple of years ago, Thanissaro Bhikku told me that in the beginning, this aspect of having faith in the Buddha and his teachings was taken for granted, that the idea of Buddhism as being faith-less was an innovation of the philosophers, particularly the Mahayanists, centuries later. However, Alan Wallace told me recently that he disagrees. I really don’t know what to think at this point.
My point is that Buddhism, as a whole and as we now have it, incorporates the idea of faith. If that wasn’t the case in the early years, it is the case now.
As far as the idea of deities is concerned, I’m not sure what you mean. Buddhism has always accepted the existence of deities, as beings on higher levels of reality; it teaches that no one of them is omniscient, omnipotent or immortal, and none of them is the “creator” - but it does accommodate the idea of a creative absolute. And I think we got here because you claimed that the Catholic Church is actually more favorably disposed to Judaism that Buddhism is. If that’s what you meant, I think it’s a huge over-simplicfication. Yes, Buddhist philosophers have demonstrated some condescension concerning the idea of a personal creator, but, in practice, Buddhism has never displayed the kind of condescension (to say nothing of the aggression) toward Judaism that Christianity has. We don’t have the history with Buddhism that we have with Christianity. Yeah, the Church has “officially” had a better attitude toward us since the sixties, and unofficially from a few decades prior. I’ll grant you that. That now leaves us nineteen centuries with which to contend! By contrast, for 2,500 years, no Jew has ever been afraid to leave his house at night because he might run into a gang of Buddhists!
Indeed, Hans Küng may not tach anymore as his teachings are considered blatantly wrong from a Catholic perspective; that, and I know people that know him that claim he’s pretty full of himself, not so much of the knowledge his academic position would require. Rahner is a pleasant read if you need introductions to various topics, and by people that were his students I was told that he also had an amiable personality. There are dissenters, e.g. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Vogels (great person; I’ve talked to him pretty often; he even filled in as a rabbi in a Southern French congregation when there was a vacancy due to the actual rabbi’s illness and the congegation couldn’t afford the pay for an interim), who retired only the other year. After being consecrated a priest and acquiring his doctorate, he got married and has since challenged the Vatican about priestal celibacy on accounts of textual evidence (he’s one of the most outstanding contemporary scholars on the gospels, Acts etc.). He could argue his point and not make claims, and was therefore never he removed from his position, even went on to become a professor. Küng draws a lot of media attention, which is not quite justified considering his scholarly abilities.
As for the Catholic faith in its persistence messing with peoples’ lives: nobody’s forced to stay with the Church. It’s easier to leave Catholicism than Orthodox Judaism. There are certain matters the Church won’t admit to or compromise on that are at the core of its beliefs; there are more than 1,200 other Christian denominations in the US alone. People have got the possibility of choice. A religion that would bend down whenever somebody asks it to would be rather opportunistic. Ratzinger’s point in documents like Iesus Dominus was that there are certain principles that are mandatory of the beliefs of everybody who wants to associate with Roman Catholic Epistolic Church; no force, just terms and conditions. His openness after his election and his willingness to debate matters of theology after his election came rather surprising to many, but as your joke quite shows, he’s an outstanding scholar, the intellectual quality of who compares to only a few contemporaries, e.g. Rahner, Breuning (great guy; at age 86 he decided he was bored with retirement and went back to university to teach for free and he even picked a small, progressive campus on purpose; professors of his standing usually make about $24k / month here) etc.
As for Buddhists, those roughly 30 to 40 years Judaism has effectively been exposed to Buddhists respectively Buddhism as the abract concept (I’ll try to find the text again where it says that Buddhism looks down upon religions for their acceptance of supreme beings), the mutual influences appear to have been limited, and not necessarily contextually benefactory to me as they seem somewhat limited to novelty esoterics taken as a surrogate for exploring Jewish spirituality.
Maybe EV can do a comic on that.
abstract*
I don’t think the point of the joke is that Ratzinger is a great scholar (although I’m sure he is), rather that he’s perceived as being intractable and so far to the right that even St. Peter would seem to be liberal by comparison!
there are certain principles that are mandatory of the beliefs of everybody who wants to associate with Roman Catholic Epistolic Church; no force, just terms and conditions.
Yes, but the understanding (among conservative Catholics) is that, if one leaves the umbrella of the Church, one is a heretic and is in danger of eternal damnation, yes? Even if one doesn’t believe that, the childhood conditioning runs deep. Even those outside of the Church who were never Catholic are seen as not necessarily damned, but as not having the full benefits of the salvific mechanisms of the Church available to them. In other words - they take their chances!
Vogels I don’t think I’ve heard of; is he Jewish? How, as a priest (whether Jewish or not), was he filling in as rabbi?
I have heard, once or twice, recently, that Ratzinger mellowed a bit after his election, but as far as his being willing to debate matters of theology is concerned - you’d have to prove it to me. Even then, I’d be inclined to see it as being just for show. People don’t change that easily - especially at his age.
Re: Jews practicing Buddhism - yeah, that’s a whole other deal. I agree with the Dalai Lama - Westerners shouldn’t become Buddhists. In fact, after thirty years of observation, I’ve come to feel very strongly that, with rare exception, Westerners shouldn’t be practicing Asian religions. The linguistic barriers, the cultural and conceptual gaps are simply too great.
Zalman Schachter-Shalomi has said that he thinks there are more Jews involved in Vipassana and Zen than in Tibetan Buddhism, and he feels that it has to do with the old injunction against idolatry. I don’t know if he’s correct - I haven’t seen figures - but it seems plausible. Zen is presented to Westerners largely as meditative method, and Vipassana is entirely method. Tibetan Buddhism is far more iconic. Although a lot of the early Western participants in Tibetan Buddhism were Jews, my observation has been that there aren’t as many involved in it today - but, of course, that’s entirely subjective on my part.
Certainly, for instance last year Benedict XVI released a book containing his views on Jesus of Nazareth and asked readers to give him feedback and share their ideas. That might not sound like a big deal, but considering where he’s coming from in public view, it was a huge step. Also, he’s been way more open with the press than was expected immiediately after his election. He was the first Pope ever to visit a synagogue on German territory (which resulted in that Cologne synagogue attracting a larger number of people since). Over here in Germany, we follow his movements pretty closely. I don’t think Ratzinger has quite changed personally when becoming Pope, but that he has kept his views all the while as head of the Congegation of faith, but that his duty there required him to strictly lay out what the beliefs of the Catholic Church are.
As to ‘nulla salus extra ecclesiam’ - that has always been a core concept of Christianity (ecclesia as in Christian Church). There is no Christian denomination that does not abide by that concept, but it’s only the Roman Catholic Epistolic Church (aka Catholic Church) that has officially exempted Jews from missionary attempts. Compare that to the sneaky approaches other groups take (e.g. there’s an Evangelical “Bible Seminary” in Brooklyn that encourages its preachers, one of whom I’ve met, to pose as BT Orthodox Jews, infiltrate synagogues and eventually use Jewish help to make an ‘aaliyah’ to preach “the truth to the Jews of Jerusalem” - yuck!).
One should not confuse the Christian-influenced, more-than-less mandatorily ordained views of rabbis with what rabbis actually were (supposed to be) in the Old World: teachers and scholars of the Torah. Like most people of his rank, Vogels is fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Ancient Greek, Latin, Italian, English, French and a whole host of othr languages; a Vatican career requires fluency in at least five languages), and the congregation felt comfortable enough with him to ask him to serve as their rabbi for a while. It’s congregations that hire their rabbis, in the past the oldest / wisest guy was called ‘rabbi’. There was nothing like an ordination or a central agency that “distributed” rabbis; that kind of stuff is pretty novelty. E.g. I could start calling DK “reb (which was used liked “Mister”) Kelsey”, and eventually some people might pick up calling him “rebbe Kelsey”. Not soon after, somebody will recall something magic he did someday.
It’s congregations that hire their rabbis, in the past the oldest / wisest guy was called ‘rabbi’. There was nothing like an ordination or a central agency that “distributed” rabbis; that kind of stuff is pretty novelty.
I know that, but I guess I would have assumed that even shtetl rabbis had smicha - not from institutions, of course, but from individual rabbis who served as their teachers.
Even so, I’m surprised to hear that a congregation would ask a Catholic priest to serve as their “rabbi”. I mean, knowledge of Hebrew and Torah wouldn’t necessarily qualify; he’d have to have a working knowledge of halakhah.
I’m assuming he wasn’t a Jew, so the question of apostasy didn’t enter into it?
I suppose apostasy never was an issue as that man could be the poster boy for integrity; the consensus at his Catholic faculty was to never even try to convert a Jew lest one might end up as religious laughing stock. At some priestal seminaries, there are Talmud classes. I know many rabbis that claim that no non-Jew would ever comprehend them, but that’s shtuss; whoever’s capable of understanding a scientific work written by somebody with such a high command of grammar and such a high vocabulary as Ratzinger’s (or for older texts e.g. those of Augustinus) won’t have anything but an easy time going through the Talmud.
As for rabbinical ordination / smicha, all books I’ve got on European Jewish history (literally hundreds) that cover the topic state there was nothing like it. Somebody served as rabbi, and that was it.
So I’ll start calling DK ‘Rabbi Kelsey’ - afterall he’s vowed not to talk to his female friends anymore, but maybe he’ll make an exception if I start using him as spiritual guidance.
Ron Coleman weighed in on his own blog and on Dean’s World: http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/...../#comments
I meant - I’m assuming he wasn’t Jewish, so they weren’t offended by apostasy on his part (conversion to Catholicism).
Nah, Jews over here are not so paranoid.
Leave a Comment