Archive decision may have political motive

In the last four decades there has been a remarkable turnabout in one of the most contentious inter-religious relationships in…

In the last four decades there has been a remarkable turnabout in one of the most contentious inter-religious relationships in human history, between Christians and Jews. This is illustrated by the efforts of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, who have both called for teshuva, repentance and reconciliation.

Yet some recent developments in Catholic-Jewish relations are sending out mixed signals, and those of us in inter-faith dialogue are concerned. This chill wind should be contrasted with John Paul II's unforgettable visit to Israel 18 months ago. For many, its highlight was his moving visit to Jerusalem and his prayer at the Western Wall.

It is noticeable that most of today's controversies focus on the Holocaust. This is because the Holocaust raises some of the most critical questions still facing us in contemporary society. As Hans Jonas has put it, in light of the Holocaust we become the first generation to ask whether there shall be future generations. In the past, that was primarily a question for God and the forces of nature to decide. That decision is now very much more in our hands.

In addition, the Holocaust resulted in a general awareness of the immensity of the burden of guilt which the church carried not only for its general silence, with some noble exceptions during 1933-45, but also because of the "teaching of contempt" towards Jews and Judaism which it carried on for so many centuries.

READ MORE

It was this that sowed the seeds of hatred and made it so easy for Hitler to use anti-Semitism as a political weapon. Although no one would deny that Nazism was opposed to Christianity, it is well known that Hitler often justified his anti-Semitism with reference to traditional Christian attitudes towards Judaism.

As a result of the soul-searching which took place after 1945, many Christians began the painful process of re-examining the sources of the teaching of contempt and repudiating them. This meant from a Christian perspective that before dialogue could take place the history of the church and its attitude towards the Jews had to be publicly acknowledged.

This involved a proper appraisal of anti-Semitism and the significance of the Holocaust. Recent Christian statements have consistently condemned anti-Semitism, and Vatican documents such as We Remember, issued in 1998, illustrate a willingness to tackle this subject.

THE Holocaust not only caused Christianity to reassess its relationship with Judaism but also stirred greater Jewish interest in Christianity. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks spoke for many when he said: "Today we meet and talk together because we must; because we have considered the alternative and seen where it ends and we are shocked to the core by what we have seen."

This makes the recent announcement that the Joint Catholic-Jewish Commission, established in 1999 to assess the Vatican's wartime role, had suspended its deliberations extremely disappointing. The commission, made up of three Catholic and three Jewish scholars, complained that the Vatican authorities had posed unacceptable conditions for the continuation of its work and did not provide access to its wartime archives.

This is a setback for the goal of improved relations between Catholics and Jews through collaborative investigations of contentious historical issues and is another instance of the controversy surrounding the ongoing attempt to beatify Pope Pius XII.

This new row also illustrates the danger when dialogue is threatened by political machinations and is not conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and trust. For example, Seymour Reich, chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Inter-Religious Consultations, and Father Peter Gumpel, a German Jesuit spearheading the campaign to beatify Pius XII, accuse each other of harbouring oldfashioned prejudices. Each seems driven by a political agenda.

Internal disagreement within the Catholic Church concerning relations with Judaism also demonstrates a power struggle between conservative and progressive forces within the Vatican. As we enter the twilight years of the pontificate of John Paul II, who has made a huge contribution to the improvement in relations between Christianity and Judaism, we appear to be witnessing the start of a struggle for succession.

The need to tackle the Holocaust is self-evident, but there are dangers if they are not conducted in perspective. For example, it would be a grave mistake if Jewish-Christian dialogue became focused solely on the Holocaust. The danger is that Jews and Christians will gain a distorted view.

For example, a young Jew will construct a negative Jewish identity, which without the positive side of Judaism will not be a value to be handed down over the generations. A young Christian will come away with an exclusive picture of the Jew as victim without an awareness of the positive aspects of Jewish culture.

Jewish-Christian dialogue should proceed at many levels and, although reaction to the Holocaust is an important driving force, dialogue cannot be built solely on responses to anti-Semitism and Christian feelings of guilt.

Indeed, no healthy and enduring relationship between people is built on guilt. If recent Christian soul-searching in the aftermath of the destruction of European Jewry leads to a new approach and a revision of traditional anti-Jewish teaching, so much the better.

However, the future relationship cannot be built on the foundations of guilt. The sense of guilt is transient and does not pass to the next generation; moreover, it is unstable, inherently prone to sudden and drastic reversal.

What are the lessons of this latest controversy? First, the pursuit of historical accuracy should not be merged with other agendas drawn from political or other considerations. Nobody doubts that investigations into the Holocaust, and the role of the Catholic Church in it, should continue. In due course, the Vatican archives for the period will be opened. The issue is not whether, but only when.

It can only be hoped that the example of scholarly co-operation set by the commission members will be infectious enough to encourage the continuing study of this significant if painful subject. As the Cardinal of Baltimore, William Keeler, commented: "Joint efforts by Catholic and Jewish scholars working together can bear fruit in the long run, provided the dialogue is conducted in the spirit of mutual respect and trust."

The new path remains laden with rocks and boulders. But those of us who have been touched by the angel of dialogue know that it is the only way and we are determined to continue come what may.

Dr Edward Kessler is director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations in Cambridge, England