A Walk Through the Hall of Mirrors

One Catholic layman's reaction to Reflections on Covenant and Mission

E. L. Core

The mind searches long to find an appropriate analogy by which to describe Reflections on Covenant and Mission, "Issued by the National Council Of Synagogues and Delegates of the Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs", August 12, 2002.

First comes to mind the phrase by which Cardinal Newman is said to have described the Anglican Church's Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion: "a masterpiece of ambiguity". Except "masterpiece" may in no way be applied to RCM. Maybe "hodge-podge"? Perhaps "mish-mash"? Yes, those words would seem to be much more apt to the occasion: RCM is a mish-mash of ambiguity.

Second comes to mind the Lord's admonition: "do not let your left hand know what your right is doing". Why? Because it seems that, in the composition of RCM, the left side of the brain did not know what the right side was doing, or vice-versa: a passage here seems to take away what was said in a passage there, and a passage there seems to take away what was said in a passage here. The document strikes one as some sort of attempt at a balanced and nuanced treatment of a highly complicated subject with many facets. Alas, the most that could be said of this attempt is that it is an attempt.

Third comes to mind the experience had by many in the fun house at a carnival or circus or amusement park: a walk through the Hall of Mirrors. Look straight ahead, see one thing; look to the left, see another; look to the right, see yet another. You're looking at the same thing all the time, but something somewhere is distorted somehow: the head too big, the waist too narrow, the feet way too large or way too small. Be careful, or you might get dizzy.

Be careful reading RCM, too, or you might get dizzy. Maybe that is what's wrong with me now: in the past two weeks, I have read RCM three times. Carefully. And I simply cannot tell you what it's about, because I don't know what it's about. I don't understand it. I don't understand why it was written. I don't understand why it was written the way it was written. I don't understand what it means. I don't understand what it's supposed to mean.

And I mostly don't understand why this hideous mish-mash of ambiguity was inflicted upon an innocent, unsuspecting population.

Ten days have passed since I wrote those introductory paragraphs. I have been at a loss to know how to proceed. I have examined RCM again. I have read other documents, such as the cited biblical passages, Nostra Aetate and other Vatican II documents, and Dominus Iesus. I have concluded that the trouble does not lie with me or with my approach to the subject. The trouble, I think, is in RCM itself, and for the very reason I have limned above: it is a poorly written hodge-podge of ambiguity that tends to defy analysis by the very fact of being a poorly written hodge-podge of ambiguity.

I must say, I tend to suspect it may have been the authors' intention to produce a work thus nearly impervious to criticism. Or, at the least, nearly impervious to criticism from those outside the inner circle of participants in Catholic-Jewish dialogues. At any rate, they could not have done it more effectively had they intended it that way.

(The staff of The Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and related groups are listed at the USCCB website. According to a blog at Ut Unum Sint, among those who "assisted" in the writing of RCM are Mary C. Boys, Philip A. Cunningham, and John T. Pawlikowski. None of these three names is familiar to me in the slightest.)

Nevertheless, there are certain passages of RCM that seem to make an awkward approach towards clarity. With this in mind, I will proceed. Generally, I will address the following: (1) the contention by some defenders of RCM that it is not a violation of the Christian and Catholic faith reaffirmed in Dominus Iesus; (2) the manhandling of the Sacred Scriptures in RCM; and (3) the outrageous claim in RCM that there is — that there even can be — a salvific covenant other than the New Covenant in Christ's death and resurrection.

First, though, I think that I should review my standing for criticizing the document. I must repeat what I have said before: that RCM is utterly without authority. A Catholic may criticize it, a Catholic may thoroughly trash it, without saying anything against the legitimate authority of bishops, or even against the illegitimate use of the authority of bishops. My bishop did not write it as a pastoral letter: he did not write it at all; he did not have anything to do with its writing; and as far as I know, he has not given any kind of approval, even the most tangential or qualified, to its statements. The bishops of the United States have not given their unanimous approval to it; as far as I know, it has not even been presented to them for their approval. Thus, it comes to me with no claim whatever on my conscience as a Catholic.

1. RCM violates the teachings in Dominus Iesus.

Some claim otherwise, because Dominus Iesus was written, they say, with pagan religions in mind. Though Dominus Iesus was occasioned by an approach to syncretism or indifferentism among theologians and pastors and missionaries dealing with pagan religions, there is nothing in the document itself that restricts its teaching to pagan religions or excludes Judaism.

I will not believe otherwise until I am presented with an official statement to the contrary. An opinion, even that of a cardinal, is insufficient testimony. If any such official pronouncement exists, I am unaware of it. And believe me, I have looked for it.

Moreover, Dominus Iesus explicitly includes discussion of both Jews and pagans, in what may be considered the core of the document. Here is the relevant passage in its entirety, but I wish to note especially the last paragraph of 13 followed immediately by the first paragraph of 14, and, particularly, the concluding sentence of 14, all of which I emphasize here:

III. UNICITY AND UNIVERSALITY OF THE SALVIFIC MYSTERY OF JESUS CHRIST

13. The thesis which denies the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ is also put forward. Such a position has no biblical foundation. In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.

The New Testament attests to this fact with clarity: "The Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world" (1 Jn 4:14); "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). In his discourse before the Sanhedrin, Peter, in order to justify the healing of a man who was crippled from birth, which was done in the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:1-8), proclaims: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). St. Paul adds, moreover, that Jesus Christ "is Lord of all", "judge of the living and the dead", and thus "whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10: 36,42,43).

Paul, addressing himself to the community of Corinth, writes: "Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor 8:5-6). Furthermore, John the Apostle states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (Jn 3:16-17). In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6).

It was in the awareness of the one universal gift of salvation offered by the Father through Jesus Christ in the Spirit (cf. Eph 1:3-14), that the first Christians encountered the Jewish people, showing them the fulfilment of salvation that went beyond the Law and, in the same awareness, they confronted the pagan world of their time, which aspired to salvation through a plurality of saviours. This inheritance of faith has been recalled recently by the Church's Magisterium: "The Church believes that Christ, who died and was raised for the sake of all (cf. 2 Cor 5:15) can, through his Spirit, give man the light and the strength to be able to respond to his highest calling, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men by which they can be saved (cf. Acts 4:12). The Church likewise believes that the key, the centre, and the purpose of the whole of man's history is to be found in its Lord and Master" [Gaudium et Spes 10].

14. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

Bearing in mind this article of faith, theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God's salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: "the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source". The content of this participated mediation should be explored more deeply, but must remain always consistent with the principle of Christ's unique mediation: "Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value only from Christ's own mediation, and they cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his". Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

15. Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like "unicity", "universality", and "absoluteness", which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the sources of the faith themselves. From the beginning, the community of believers has recognized in Jesus a salvific value such that he alone, as Son of God made man, crucified and risen, by the mission received from the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit, bestows revelation (cf. Mt 11:27) and divine life (cf. Jn 1:12; 5:25-26; 17:2) to all humanity and to every person.

In this sense, one can and must say that Jesus Christ has a significance and a value for the human race and its history, which are unique and singular, proper to him alone, exclusive, universal, and absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of all. In expressing this consciousness of faith, the Second Vatican Council teaches: "The Word of God, through whom all things were made, was made flesh, so that as perfect man he could save all men and sum up all things in himself. The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the desires of history and civilization, the centre of mankind, the joy of all hearts, and the fulfilment of all aspirations. It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead". "It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev 22:13)".

(I will note in passing that Dominus Iesus 20 cites Mark 16:16 and John 3:5 when pointing out how the Lord Jesus Himself "explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism"; in both cases, He was speaking directly, immediately, and personally to Jews.)

It seems to me that merely reading the document itself presents an insuperable obstacle to maintaining that Dominus Iesus was not meant to include Jews and the Jewish religion.

2. I am very disturbed by the way in which RCM manhandles the Word of God. The first case is in its citation of the Acts of the Apostles:

Knowledge of the history of Jewish life in Christendom also causes such biblical texts as Acts 5:33-39 to be read with new eyes. In that passage the Pharisee Gamaliel declares that only undertakings of divine origin can endure. If this New Testament principle is considered by Christians today to be valid for Christianity, then it must logically also hold for post-biblical Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism, which developed after the destruction of the Temple, must also be "of God."

Here is the cited passage in the New American Bible:

Acts 5:33 When they heard this, they became infuriated and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time, 35 and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. 36 Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. 37 After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. 38 So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. 39 But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him.

The assertion in RCM is a case of proving too much, which is effectively the same as proving nothing at all. If we "must" "logically hold" that "rabbinic Judaism" is "of God" because it has survived for so long, in difficult circumstances, then we may also do so for Islam, and Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Confucianism, and Shintoism, and heathen idol-worshipping paganism. These conclusions are, of course, absurd. Thus, the alleged logic of the authors of RCM is similarly absurd. It seems that the authors of RCM would do well to demand a remake of the "new eyes" they got.

Perhaps that is a rather weak case of manhandling, though: it's not so much bad as it is stupid. The abuse of the Gospel of Matthew is worse:

Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people's mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethne, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.

Here is the cited passage in the New American Bible:

Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, ....

The authors of RCM try to make it seem that the Jews are excluded from the dominical command to "make disciples of all nations", apparently because ad gentes (Latin) and its equivalents in Greek and Hebrew were/are used by the Jews to refer to peoples not Jewish. But I have always understood this usage in Matthew to mean mutatis mutandis the peoples not Christian.

But who am I? Ignorant, uneducated, inexperienced layman that I am.

The very editors of the Bible quoted, published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, also dispute the contention of RCM. Here is part of a footnote (12) to the quoted biblical passage:

While all nations is understood by some scholars as referring only to all Gentiles, it is probable that it included the Jews as well.

Similarly, the Jerome Biblical Commentary, hardly a conservative work, says (43:206) the passage means something very different than the authors of RCM seem to think it means:

The Church acts in virtue of the commission that Jesus has received — a commission that is without limit. By his authority they may make disciples of all nations; there is no longer any question of the restriction of the mission to Jews.

In either case, Jews are not excluded from "mission". If the authors of RCM were still using their "new eyes" here, that have made a biblical passage mean pretty much the opposite of what it did 35 years ago, they had best pluck them out and throw them away.

3. RCM twice refers to a covenant other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ as being salvific.

Here is the first, which involves a quotation from Walter Cardinal Kasper:

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation. As Cardinal Kasper noted, "God's grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."

Surely, Judaism is one of the two religions founded by God. No Christian could dispute that. True, God is faithful to His promises. Again, what Christian or Jew could dare to think otherwise?

But to say that the Mosaic Covenant is in anyway "salvific" for anybody in any circumstances is simply rank heresy. (Cf. Dominus Iesus III, especially 14, quoted above.) In no way whatever does this follow — in no way whatever can this possibly ever follow — from any teaching of the Catholic Church at any time. The cardinal's "Therefore" is simply untrue. Cardinal Kasper, and the authors of RCM, seem to have overlooked a passage in Nostra Aetate that they otherwise esteem so highly (emphasis added):

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

Here is the second passage in which the Mosaic Covenant is deemed to be salvific:

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God....

No quotation, no citation, no footnote, no reference whatever accompanies this remarkable claim of "acknowledgement". This, too, is simply rank heresy. For the Catholic Church has never, will never — cannot ever — "acknowledge" that there is any saving covenant other than the New Covenant in Christ's blood.

Why did God the Son become incarnate of the Virgin Mary, live, teach, act, suffer, die, rise, and ascend to glory if the Mosaic Covenant is "salvific" for anybody?

I hardly know how to make myself clearer. And I can hardly imagine how any Christian can read these two passages in RCM without having the blood drain from his face, the breathe fail in his lungs, and his heart sink like lead in his chest.

I decline to address other passages and aspects of RCM. From this, one should not infer either my agreement or disagreement with any passage or aspect that remains unaddressed. It's time to finish this walk through the Hall of Mirrors, before I get too dizzy to stand up.

Is RCM utterly without merit? I suppose not. But when a document abuses biblical texts and espouses rank heresy — even if the motivations of its authors are blameless — I'm not sure what good it would do to say it is not entirely worthless.

All bishops, as members of the body of bishops succeeding to the College of Apostles, are consecrated not just for some one diocese, but for the salvation of the entire world. The mandate of Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15) primarily and immediately concerns them, with Peter and under Peter. Whence there arises that communion and cooperation of churches which is so necessary today for carrying on the work of evangelization. In virtue of this communion, the individual churches bear the burden of care for them all, and make their necessities known to one another, and exchange mutual communications regarding their affairs, since the extension of the Body of Christ is the duty of the whole College of Bishops. (Ad gentes 38)

(RCM is also available at Boston College's Center for Christian-Jewish Learning and, sans footnotes, at Jewish-Christian Relations. It is not, as of 11/5/2002, available at the USCCB website.)

© ELC 2002