Ending Roman Catholic Antisemitism

Genesis of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions

The theology for the new relation of the Roman Catholic Church with the Jews hides in the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate. The debate to end dogmatic antisemitism of the official Roman Catholic Church and on the acknowledgment of the Jewish origin of the Christian faith concluded at the end of the Second Vatican Council. The final vote on the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate was held on October 28, 1965 (Paul VI. 1965. “Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate.” The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican). Pope Paul VI proclaimed the document that very same day.

With 2,221 Yes and 88 No votes Nostra Aetate received the largest number of No votes of any document voted on at the Second Vatican Council (Rahner, Karl, and Herbert Vorgrimler. 1966. Kleines Konzilskompendium. Freiburg: Herder. 349). In June 1962 the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity presented to the Central Commission the draft of a Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Pope John XXIII had asked for the draft. The scheme opposed antisemitism and was withdrawn because of protests from the Arab world (ibid.). Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, intervened with John XXIII and in November 1963 the scheme was again presented at the second session of the Council as Chapter 4 of the scheme on ecumenism (ibid.). There was no debate on Chapter 4, nor was an extensive debate possible on Chapter 5 that dealt with religious liberty (Miccoli, Giovanni. 1999. “Due nodi: la libertà religiosa e le relazioni con gli ebrei.” In La chiesa come comunione. Il rezo periodo e la terza intersessione settembre 1964 – settembre 1965. Vol. 4 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 119–220. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. 120). On April 16, 1964, the Coordinating Commission decided that Chapters 4 and 5 would be taken out of the draft on ecumenism and that there would be two distinct declarations, one on the Jews and the non-Christians and the other on religious liberty. This proposal came from Cardinal Confalonieri (1893-1986), and the idea to produce two distinct documents on religious liberty and on relations to the Jews and non-Christian religions constituted the solution until the final approval of the Declarations in October 1965 (ibid. 119-20).

At this point, I would like to look at some of the remarks the historians made concerning Confalonieri. During preparations for the Council Cardinal Confalonieri did not agree with Cardinal Ottaviani’s claim that his Theological Commission was not only independent, but also sovereign in relation to the other Preparatory Commissions (Komonchak, Joseph. 1995. “La lotta per il concilio durante la preparazione”. In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 177–380. 320 Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Confalonieri denied the superiority of a single Preparatory Commission over the others and even spoke of “original sin”, because the competences of the Preparatory Commissions had not been clearly defined from the beginning (ibid.). Cardinal Confalonieri got along well with Cardinal Bea, the chief architect for a new relation with the Jews; Cardinal Ottaviani considered Cardinal Bea to be a parvenu in the Curia and strongly opposed Bea’s views on the inspiration of the Scriptures, religious liberty, and the relationship to the Jews (ibid. 325). Confalonieri, together with Döpfner, Alfrink and Maximos IV, also strongly opposed Ottaviani’s views on the jurisdiction of the bishops. Ottaviani claimed that a bishop’s ordination is the source not only of his Magisterium, that is the teaching of the Church, but also of the jurisdiction of the bishop (ibid. 334). Confalonieri claimed that the powers of jurisdiction of the bishops derived not from their ordination, but from the mandate granted to them by the supreme authority of the Church, the pope (ibid. 335). The two origins of the teaching and the jurisdictional powers of the bishop justify the idea of a kind of separation of powers. Confalonieri is an example of a curial Cardinal who did not oppose the reform council that John XXIII wanted. Ottaviani was the hawk of the enemies of reform.

The second preparation of the Council

There is no doubt that the prepared documents for the Second Vatican Council were strongly influenced by the Roman Curia and its cardinals. John XXIII reduced this decisive influence with the rules for the work of the Council that were promulgated in August 1962. On September 4, 1962, John XXIII published the list with the names of the presidents of the commissions, who were cardinals from the curia, and the members of the Secretariat for the Extraordinary Affairs of the Council. The names clearly show the pope’s policy of carefully balancing the influence of the Curia at the Council against the liberty of the Council to proceed according to John XXIII’s intentions for reform (Wittstadt 1995, 468). The presidency of the Council was entrusted to open-minded cardinals like Liénart, Frings and Alfrink (ibid.). Another member of the Curia and moderate reformer was Cardinal Eugène Tisserant (1884-1972), Dean of the College of Cardinals of the Roman Curia, who cultivated excellent contacts to the Oriental Churches by speaking their languages, collaborated constructively with the exegetes of the Roman Bible Institute and was a member of the Académie Fançaise of his native France (Quisinsky, Walter 2013, 273). Tappouni (Beirut-Rome), Gilroy (Sidney), Spellman (New York), Pla y Deniel (Toledo), Ruffini (Palermo) and Caggiano (Buenos Aires) were also members of the presidency (Wittstadt 1995, 467). The presidents of the ten commissions were all cardinals of the Roman Curia. For the Secretariat for the Extraordinary Affairs of the Council Pope John XXIII again named cardinals who were open to reform (ibid. 468).

The events of the second day of the Council, namely October 12, 1962, created a dynamic that ended in early December in apparent confusion. At the end of the first session a majority of the Council fathers wanted to ensure that during the first intercession (December 9, 1962 – September 28, 1963) the work by the Council’s commissions would continue in preparation for the second session (Sep 29, 1963 - Dec 4, 1963). The first intersession is also called the second preparation of the council. The number of schemes that had been prepared so far had to be reduced and the remaining schemes had to get fundamentally revised (Grootaers, Jan. 1996. “Il concilio si gioca nell’intervallo. La seconda preparazione e i suoi avversari.” In La formazione della coscienza conciliare. Il primo period e la prima intersessione ottobre 1962 – settembre 1963. Vol. 2 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 385–558. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. 391). This second preparation of the Council would realize the final emancipation from the conservative influences of the Curia that determined the first preparation (ibid.).

The votes of the first session showed that the majority wanted revised schemes. At the beginning of December 1962, the will for change was further articulated in the speeches of leaders of the majority like Lercaro, Léger, Döpfner, Suenens and Montini (ibid.). On December 6, 1962, it was announced that the pope would create a coordinating commission with authority to oversee again the modified schemes and to prepare the second session (ibid. 392). The presidency of the Coordinating Commission was given to Cardinal Cicognani, Secretary of State and President of the Secretariat for the Extraordinary Affairs of the Council.

Amleto Cicognani (1883-1973) came from Brisighella in the Province of Ravenna. He had studied at the Roman Seminary, the later Lateran University, and since 1928 worked in the Congregation for the Churches of the East. For 25 years he had been the Apostolic Delegate in the United States. He was esteemed as an experienced diplomat and made a cardinal in 1958. On the death of Cardinal Tardini in 1961 he was appointed Cardinal Secretary of State (Roy, Philippe J. 2013. “Cicognani, Amleto Giovanni.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 78. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In 1953 his brother Gaetano Cicognani (1881-1962) was made a cardinal and appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Rites. He presided over the commission that prepared the scheme on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and he signed the scheme only four days before his death. The scheme on liturgy was the only prepared scheme that the Council fathers did not reject and demand to be revised. The scheme was already approved on December 4, 1963 (Fischer, Balthasar. 2013. “Cicognani, Gaetano.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 78–79. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder).

The first of six sessions of this new Coordinating Commission was held at the end of January 1963 (Grootaers. 1996. 393). Cardinal Urbani, who as Patriarch of Venice represented the Italian episcopate, suggested that the schemes be reduced to a list of 17 and the Coordinating Commission accepted his proposal (ibid.). For each scheme or document, that the Coordinating Commission was to work on, Cardinal Urbani established one responsible member of the coordinating commission, one “relator.” Liénart was responsible for the document on revelation and the document on the deposit of faith. Suenens was relator for the document on the Church, for the document on the Virgin Mary, and for the document on social media. Döpfner was relator for the documents on bishops and dioceses, for the religious and for pastoral work, Urbani for the education of priests, the clergy, for the Apostolate of the Lay, for marriage and the Catholic associations, Cicognani for ecumenism and for the Oriental Churches, Confalonieri for Catholic education and the missions, and Spellman for the holy liturgy and chastity (ibid. 193-94). In addition to these cardinals also Felici, the Council’s Secretary General, and his five under-secretaries assisted at the discussions of the Coordinating Commission (ibid. 397).

John XXIII was determined that the second preparation should be creative and dynamic. In order to ensure that the bishops who had returned home during the intersession would return to the second preparation, John XXIII addressed his letter Mirabilis ille to all the Council fathers; it was dated on the feast of the Epiphany 1963 (ibid. 195). In this letter he encouraged the bishops to draw up the documents for the second session in the way they wanted to. By doing this John XXIII clearly approved the liberty of expression of the 2,700 members of the assembly of the Council (ibid. 196). This was not in the interest of the Curia, but it was necessary to advance reform. The pope knew that he had only a very limited time due to his progressive cancer. He encouraged the bishops to give spiritual support and to cooperate with the Cardinal State Secretary to ensure good preparations for the second session and also invited the clergy and the lay to cooperate in these preparations (ibid.). John XXIII addressed the Coordinating Commission in its first session and was personally present at the second session on March 25, 1963, where he exhorted the cardinals to cooperate and to confirm that the principal theme of the Council was the Church (ibid. 395). Cardinals in the Coordinating commission who were close to the Curia, like Confalonieri, Cicognani and Urbani, regularly differed in their positions from commission members who were not members of the Roman Curia. These conflicts of interests frequently led to disputes (ibid. 401). It is interesting that Grootaers qualifies Confalonieri as a moderate conservative (ibid. 408). In the period of the preparation of the Council Confalonieri was opposing Ottaviani and critical of the Curia’s centralism (Komonchak, Joseph. 1995. 320-35). The new Secretariat (Secretariat for the Extraordinary Affairs of the Council) and the new commission (Coordinating Commission) significantly contributed to the dynamic of the second preparation for the Council.

Cardinal Bea was president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Cardinal Cento was president of the Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity. The cardinals of these two institutions, who during the preparation of the Council had emerged from the Catholic ecumenical movement and the World Congresses for the Apostolate of the Laity, in the second preparation encountered much hostility from other Council commissions (ibid. 399). The Italian Fernando Cento (1883-1973) studied at the Gregorian and Sapienza in Rome, was consecrated Bishop of Acireale in 1922 and had been nuncio in Venezuela (1926), Peru (1936), Ecuador (1937), Belgium and Luxemburg (1946) and Portugal (1953) (Roy, Philippe J. 2013. “Cento” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 74. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). In 1958 he was made a cardinal and appointed Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the tribunal that deals with absolutions and dispensations from sins that lead to excommunication and that specifies indulgencies. Cento is another example of a curial cardinal who was not fighting Church reforms. On the contrary, he was a strong defender of the agency of the laity in the Catholic Church.

There is also the fact that those cardinals who defend the documents that had been prepared by the Curia for the Council, now turn out to be decisive adversaries of the second preparation. There are cardinals like Siri from Genoa and Ruffini from Palermo, who join curial resistance to the second preparation and this resistance was getting more and more effective (ibid. 402). Cardinal Ottaviani does not want to collaborate with the Council and indeed does not collaborate with the Coordinating Commission. John XXIII suggested that mixed commissions be created in order to ensure that all the commissions cooperate with the Coordinating Commission. Ottaviani did not want to form a mixed commission with members of his doctrinal commission and Cento’s Commission for the Apostolate of the Laity. The conflict between Ottaviani and Cento was severe and Ottaviani did not meet with Cento when he visited his congregation for talking (ibid. 403). Cicognani was important to stop Ottaviani from trying to take influence over other commissions and the Coordinating Commission, because he feared for his own document on the Oriental Churches (ibid. 404). This decision by Cicognani greatly helped affirming the necessary authority of the Coordinating Commission.

Development of the text of Nostra Aetate

The texts on religious liberty and on the relationship between the Church and the Jews and non-Christian religions were discussed in the aula in September 1964, at the third session of the Council (September 14, 1964 - November 21, 1964). The two texts were always considered to be connected because of their common origin in Bea’s scheme on ecumenism. Both texts continued to receive the full attention of the outside world and expectations were rising. More than the other schemes that were discussed by the Council, the texts on religious liberty and on the relation to the Jews served as criteria for assessing if there is an effective change by the Catholic Church towards its relation to the Jews and to religious liberty (Miccoli 1999, 120). In April 1964 Bea published an article in Rome insisting on the importance of the two texts for the life of the Church and the credibility of its presence in the modern world. In November 1964, Congar wrote that these two documents would define the new climate for relations between the Catholic Church and the world (ibid.). The Church had to overcome claiming that only truth had a right to liberty and that error could only enjoy a relative kind of tolerance (ibid. 121).

On September 25, 1964, Cardinal Bea reported on the last version of the draft of the Declaration on the Jews and the Non-Christians (ibid. 160). The applause that greeted Bea when he stepped up to the microphone and at the end of his speech in the aula was the recognition for his perseverance to patiently overcome the multiple obstacles he faced in recent years in his efforts to obtain consent for his Declaration (ibid.). Originally, the text concerned only the Jews as a response to the disasters wrought by antisemitism in Europe (ibid. 161). Bea spoke of the tragedy of the Shoah and criticized that Catholic Christians do not yet have the will to reflect on the century-long persecution of Jews and on Christian antisemitism that was cultivated by the Church’s teachings and liturgy (ibid.). At the time of the Council only a minority of Catholics recognized the need to investigate the connection between the traditional Christian polemic contempt for Jews and violent antisemitism; there were few Catholics calling for a new relationship based on respect and recognition (ibid.). There had been no proposals for a new relation with the Jews in the preparing letters for the Council by the world episcopate and the Catholic universities (ibid. 162). It was thanks to John XXIII and the tenacity of Cardinal Bea that discussion of this agenda was brought before the Council and thus a change of mentality of the Council fathers was achieved (ibid.). In September 1960 John XXIII officially asked Cardinal Bea to consider relations to the Jews at the Council (ibid.). It was a long way from September 1960 to Bea’s report on September 25, 1964. Especially the months of April to September 1964 were filled with intensive efforts by all concerned parties to get their interests represented in the Declaration; in the third intercession (November 22, 1964 - September 13, 1965) the fight for the Declaration will continue.

In his report to the Council fathers on September 25, 1964, Bea attempted to avoid any political allusion that might insinuate recognition of the State of Israel. He drove his argumentation along the road of the close ties binding the Church and the “people of Israel” for fear of the many persons and predominantly of Secretary of State Cicognani, who did not want to deal with the Hebrew issue at the Council for fear of the Arab world (ibid. 164). Bea cited the Gospel and Paul insisting that Go’d did not spurn the Jews. Bea refuted the legitimacy of the claim made by Christians that the Jews collectively committed theocide, that is the killing of Go’d. Instead, Bea called on Catholic teaching and doctrine to remind us that Jesus forgave his persecutors, and that Christians should behave in accordance with Christ’s commandments (ibid.). On January 20, 1963, in Berlin the play Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) by Rolf Hochhuth condemned the silence of Pius XII in the face of the extermination of the Jews (ibid. 165). In this context it was evident that rejection of antisemitism by the Council could easily be interpreted as condemnation of Pius XII by the Catholic Church and as an admission that his silence concerning the Jews was sinful (ibid. 166). The second session did not debate the document; there were some questions in the aula and for fear of the Arabs the oriental patriarchs opposed any Declaration by the Council on the matter. European and North American bishops were in favor of such a Declaration (ibid.). Cardinal Cicognani, at that time president of the coordinating commission, opened its session of April 16 and 17, 1964 by noting the hostile reception he had received when visiting Arab countries and the vulnerable situation of the threatened minority of Christians still living there. He suggested saying something about the Jews because the Council fathers wanted something to be said. He also insisted on speaking about the Muslims and the pagans in general, because all were created by Go’d and are included in his universal will of salvation (ibid. 168-69). Cicognani sent a letter to Bea the next day insisting that the draft concerning the Jews would not use the term theocide but would rather underline the nexus of the Jewish people and the Holy Catholic Church. No persecution of Jews by Christians throughout history would be mentioned. The text would refer to other non-Christian people, stress the principle of universal fraternity and condemn any form of oppression of peoples or races (ibid. 169). It was clear to Bea that the logic of this kind of text would completely reverse the original motivations of John XXIII to renew the relation to the Jews (ibid.). What happened next is not yet clear for the historian (ibid.). Johannes Willebrands (1909-2006) - he had been appointed secretary of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in 1960 and was Bea’s most valuable associate - managed the affair. He asked the Dominican father Yves Congar and Charles Moeller to work on an enlarged text on ecumenism that would include the Declaration on the Jews and the Non-Christians (ibid.). Yves Congar (1904-1995) was co-developer of the new theology in France, censored by Rome in the 1950s and then an expert at the Council. The Belgian theologian and priest Charles Moeller (1912-1986) was named peritus (expert) at the request of Cardinal Paul-Émile Légers of Montreal (Declerck. “Moeller“ In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 2013, 194). Congar and Moeller respected the reservations of Cicognani while at the same time maintained Bea’s text. Cicognani apparently had not read this last version of Bea’s text. On the basis of the paternity of G’od the Father, Congar introduced the general brotherhood of all men and women on this earth and at Cicognani’s request avoided the term theocide by using other words to describe the situation (ibid. 170). The text was sent to the secretariat general of the Council on May 2 and on May 6 the secretariat sent it to Paul VI (Miccoli 1999. 171). Paul VI commented positively on the text but did not want any explicit mentioning of present or past antisemitism and persecution of Jews by Christians. Bea was not happy and protested (ibid.).

The situation changed substantially because in the meantime the press had alarmed the public (ibid. 172). Press articles in the United States warned that the new text would invite the Jews to convert - Paul VI seemed to have insinuated this hope – and would not acquit the Jews of theocide. American Jews and Protestants published animated protests (ibid.). In a letter to Cicognani Cardinal Spellman protested that he did not understand why it was necessary to write about the Jews in the first place, but if something had to be said, any weakening of what had been presented at the second session would have dire consequences (ibid. 173).

Lercaro indicated to Paul VI that already the Council of Trent (1545-1563) had confirmed the belief-sentence that Jesus died to atone for the sins of all men and women (ibid. 174). In June and July 1964, the text was the subject of much discussion between the pope, the Secretariat of State and Felici, the secretary of theCounmcil. In the end Lercaro’s wording was not accepted by Paul VI and was excluded from the text. Some elements of traditional Christian anti-Hebraism remained in the text as a result of these numerous interventions. Mario Luigi Ciappi (1926-1996), Dominican, Professor of Theology and Master of the Sacred Palace (1955-89), cited Thomas Aquinas in support of the theocide accusation - Summa theologica, III, q.47, a.5, ad 3. – and did not want to implement Bea’s suggestion to exclude Acts 3:15-17 from the text, where the Apostle Peter apparently blames the Jewish people for killing Jesus . Consequently, Ciappi and Michael Brown (1903-1971), Master General of the Dominican Order who was made a cardinal in 1962, refused to include Acts 13:27 - where the Apostle Paul attributes the condemnation of Jesus to the Jewish rulers and the people of Jerusalem - in the text for fear of acquitting the Jews collectively for the fault of some of their leaders in Jerusalem (ibid. 175). Formally, Paul VI took the side of Brown and Ciappi. Congar documents that in the following months of spring and summer 1964, Ratzinger told him that it would be difficult to get the text accepted, because Paul VI is convinced of the collective guilt of the Jews in killing Jesus (ibid.). Giovanni Miccoli, the historian from Trieste, assesses that there are no documents to prove or disprove this conviction supposedly held by Paul VI. Yet, he points to the homily of Paul VI on Palm Sunday 1965, where he speaks of the collective guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ. There followed severe reactions and questions from Jews all over the world (ibid.).

Three days after Bea’s presentation of his text in the aula in the third session, the discussions started on September 28, 1964. Slowly, the aula recognized that it would be disastrous for the Catholic Church to have to face a skeptical press that accused the Church of not giving up its antisemitism (ibid. 182). Ruffini did not want to encourage Christians to love the Jews. The people of Israel would have to love the Church for the protection received during the Shoah (ibid.). Congar noted in his diary on September 28, 1964: antisemitism is not dead (ibid. 183). He had heard that all the bishops received a pamphlet accusing Cardinal Bea of being of Jewish descent (ibid.). This was only one of a flood of antisemitic booklets, pamphlets and publications by Catholic authors lamenting the aggressive character of the Jews in confronting the Catholic Church. The bishops of the Coetus internationalis patrum (International Group of Fathers), the pressure group of the traditionalist minority of the Second Vatican Council, were taking an active part in this hate campaign (ibid. 184). In the aula’s discussion cardinals Cushing and Ritter, bishops Seper, Méndez Arceo, Elchinger and Leven recalled the cruelties of the Shoah and reminded the Council of its duty to admit that the humanitarian apocalypse of the Shoah ran up against Catholic passivism (ibid. 185).

Cardinal Lercaro finally acquired some Christian arguments for the text on the Jews. He did not argue with respect to the press and public opinion; not even the Shoah, which every man of good will deplores, was his most profound motivation for the text (ibid. 187). Lercaro invited the Catholic Church to develop a more mature consciousness of its supernatural aspects in daily life. The importance of the Jews for the Christians cannot be limited to what they inherited from the past, because the Jews, the Chosen People, are still Go’d’s first choice in the present (ibid.). In the eyes of the Catholic Church the people of the Covenant possess not only dignity and supernatural value for their past and for the origins of the Church, but also possess dignity and supernatural value in the present. This present supernatural value for Christians signifies the most essential, the highest, most religious, most divine and permanent value in the daily life of the Church (ibid.). Lercaro reminded the aula what had already been said in the documents on the Church and on the Liturgy. The cardinal then presented the theology that Giuseppe Dossetti had prepared for him. The word of Go’d and the Eucharist are prefigured in the Pascal Lamb and manna. They are voluntarily realized by Christ during the Easter haggadah – the text recited at the ritual and ceremonial dinner on the first two nights of Jewish Passover - of the Hebrews. Christ, the Pascal Lamb, and the Eucharist mysteriously realize in the present an effective communion of the liturgical assembly, the body of Christ, and constitute the Church of Christ and the holly qahal (company, society) of the sons of Israel, nourishing in the present a profound “commerce” of words and blood, of Spirit and life, where we Christians legitimately proclaim that Abraham is our patriarch (ibid. 187-88).

Gahamanyi, Bishop of Butare in Rwanda, lamented in the last intervention on the document on September 30, 1964, that the Jews and Muslims were pictured too positively. Jews and Muslims close themselves off very much from Christians, whereas African animism was open to Christians (ibid. 189). About 80 fathers signed his intervention, many of them African bishops, but also some of the Coetus internationalis partrum, who on the basis of traditional Catholic doctrine on the Jews wanted to hide their rejection of the document behind the arguments put forth by the Africans (ibid.). The massive attacks on the document by a minority insisted that by killing Jesus the Jews had committed a crime and that consequently this murder excludes any positive role of the Jews and the Old Testament in the faith of today’s Catholics (ibid. 190). On the last day of the session a large majority of about 1,700 fathers voted in an orientation vote in favor of the text, but the number of juxta modum votes, namely those cast under the condition that changes can still be made, was relatively large. Behind the scenes the favorable conditions for the text were secretly changing (ibid. 192). At the end of December 1964 Bea hat to fight off an attempt by Cicognani to take over control of the redaction of the Declaration on the Jews and the Non-Christians (Burigana, Riccardo and Turbanti, Giovanni. 1999. “L’intersessione: preparare la conclusione del concilio.” In Il cattolicesimo verso una nuova stagione. L`annuncio e la preparazione gennaio 1959 – settembre 1962. Vol. 1 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 483–648. 502. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). Cicognani’s motive for making substantial modifications to the text was political opportunism, namely he did not want diplomatic relations with the Arab world to deteriorate to the advantage of the State of Israel (ibid.). Bea did not want to rewrite the whole Declaration but wanted to start work on the more than 200 changes the Council fathers requested (ibid. 503). The situation at the plenary session of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity in March 1965 was tense and Willebrands called for a toned-down wording that would refute the theocide accusation (ibid. 582). In the following weeks Willebrands and Pierre Duprey (1922-2007), French priest and professor of theology who cultivated contact to the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras, travelled twice to the Middle East (ibid.). First, they visited the patriarchs in Lebanon and Syria, then in Jerusalem and Cairo. Paul VI was under pressure from Maximos IV Sayegh (1878-1967), since 1947 Patriarch of Beirut, who threatened to leave the Council in protest because of anticipated negative Arab reactions to the Declaration. The pope told Bea that if Maximos IV left the Council, he would cancel the Declaration on the Jews and the Non-Christians (ibid. 584). The Declaration’s situation was becoming increasingly uncertain. Uncertainty also ruled the alternatives that included the possibility to cancel the Declaration altogether or to stay with the text that the Council had already voted to accept. Congar was angry and wrote in his diary that twenty years after Auschwitz it was not possible to say nothing about the Jews (ibid. 587). On May 12, controversy reigned the plenary session of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Finally, a compromise was reached, namely, to use the text that had already been voted on by the Council and include as corrections two of the amendments Paul VI had requested. The expression “guilty of the murder of God” was not disapproved of and condemnation of antisemitism was changed so that antisemitism was to be deplored (ibid. 590). On his way home to Belgium from Rome Suenens wrote a short letter to Dell’Aqua informing him of his doubts on the legitimacy of introducing these amendments into a text that had already been approved by the Council and advised the pope to stay out of the Council. Cardinal Dell’Aqua, who acted as a mediator between the Council fathers and Paul VI on many occasions, gave the letter to Felici who insisted on the pope’s right to intervene in the Council at any time. Felici was not at all happy with a Declaration concerning the Hebrews. If it was not possible to abandon the Declaration until after the Council he would consent to the suggestions introducing some comments on the Jews in scheme XIII that is the document on the relation of the Church and the world. Polemics of this sort would erupt with vehemence in September of 1965 (ibid. 591).

September 15, 1965, sees the end of the complex redaction of the text of the Declaration De ecclesiae habitudine ad religiones non-christianas (On the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions) at the plenary session of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (Velati, Mauro. 2001. “Il completamento dell’agenda conciliare.” In Concilio di transizione. Il quarto period e la conclusion del concilio (1965). Vol. 5 of Storia del concilio Vaticano II, directed by Giuseppe Alberigo, 197–284.223. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino). At the end of September, the text is distributed in the aula of Saint Peter and the decisive last phase of approval begins. The different adversaries of the document were still active. There was the group of bishops that from the beginning of the Council’s preparations did not want any opening to the world of the non-Christian religions and the Jews. The Arabs on their part worked against the document that they considered pro-Israel and pressed the oriental bishops to resist. There was also a small group of bishops still demanding the wording “murder of God” as qualification for all Jews of all times (ibid.). On October 11, 1965, the Coetus internationalis patrum (International Group of Fathers) distributed a document in the aula only three days before the final vote. Conservative Council fathers of the so-called minority formally established the Coetus at the end of 1963. Estimates suggest that up to 10% of the Council fathers were members or sympathizers of the Coetus. They started meeting informally in the first period of the Council in the fall of 1962, discussing their interest in maintaining the documents prepared by the Preparatory Commissions. Their document of October 11, 1965 was especially negative on the whole Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the organs of the Council that allowed the third session to vote on the Declaration (ibid. 224). The Coetus` traditionalists wanted the Jews to be held responsible and “damned” by Go’d for killing Christ and refused any dialogue with the other religions (ibid. 225). On this point the Coetus went against the teachings of John XXIII and Paul VI, who wanted dialogue and to discover what the Christians have in common with other religions (ibid.). The Coetus proposed that the whole Declaration be rejected and gave two principal reasons: first, the approach of establishing a dialogue with other religions like Islam and Buddhism would only delay their conversion and, second, would slow down the Church’s missionary impulse (ibid. 226). The continuing diplomatic efforts by Willebrands and Duprey, who distributed a new Arabic translation of the Declaration to the embassies of the Arab world in Rome and to the Apostolic delegates in the Arab countries, paid off and also Patriarch Maximos IV responded positively to the Declaration (ibid. 226-227). The discussions were not over. The final votes on the individual numbers of the Declaration showed a minority of about 10% of the bishops opposing the condemnation of antisemitism (ibid. 227, 232). American Jewish organizations protested the old condemnation of the Jews in the Declaration (ibid. 228). The Archbishop of Baltimore, Cardinal Shehan, was preoccupied by the Jewish reaction in the United States (ibid. 231). It is true that the version accepted by vote in 1963 was free of these accusations and condemned the Church’s antisemitism and persecution of Jews directly and without softening or toning down the Declaration’s wording. The French theologian René Laurentin fights for this kind of text and even cites the Koran (sure 4 verse 156) as proof that the Jews are not guilty of having killed Jesus (ibid. 229). Theologically, Trent made it clear anyway that Jesus was killed because of the sins of all mankind. Laurentin does make the point that a second time the Church must not stay passive in the face of possible genocide (ibid. 230). The French philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), friend and mentor of Paul VI, was deeply hurt by a possible suppression of the condemnation of antisemitism. In 1904 Maritain married Raissa Oumancoff, a Russian Jewish émigrée (Raffelt, Albert. 2013. “Maritain”. In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 185–86. 185. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Maritain communicated his pain that the expression damnat (condemns) had been replaced with the expression deplorat (deplores) and completed his plaintive outcry by observing that the current wording of the Declaration was falling short of the condemnation of racism and antisemitism undertaken by Pius XI (Velati 2001, 231). Paul VI made State Secretary Cardinal Cicognani communicate the complaints voiced by Shehan and Maritain to Bea on the day of the vote on the Declaration (ibid.). Bea replied that at this stage it was impossible to change the text (ibid.). The vote on October 15, 1965, was positive. Nevertheless, the number of No votes showed a persistent opposition of 88 persons (ibid: 232).

Official Roman Catholic Antisemitism after the Second Vatican Council

Nowadays women, men and queer need to experience and realize a lot of healing love for other women, men and queer. I thought the hatred of antisemitism like we encountered at the Second Vatican Council was the expression of early primary emotions like disgust, contempt, and anger, or that later structural affects like envy and jealousy were at work. When studying the brief classification of emotions made by psychologists, I came to realize that this Catholic antisemitism was above all the expression of feelings of shame and guilt. “Shame signalizes a discrepancy between the real and the ideal self,” the experts tell me and: “shame and guilt are affective companions of a negative appraisal of one’s own self” (Aichhorn, Wolfgang, and Helmut Kronberger. 2012. “The Nature of Emotions. A Psychological Perspective.” In Yearbook 2011. Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley, 515–525. 523. Berlin: De Gruyter). I am not referring to the experts because I want to explain something pathological. Psychological diagnosis and therapy are the business of psychologists and psychological therapists. They are not my business. My business is to point out the link between the theological argumentation or rather pseudo-argumentation for antisemitism and the expressed emotions of hate. Theologians like cardinal Bea, Willebrands, Oesterreicher, Giuseppe Dossetti and many others assessed the theological argument for the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews. It is by no means justified to speak of a collective guilt of the Jews for having killed Jesus, and a Catholic must condemn antisemitism on the basis of the commandment of love and non-discrimination. Psychologists confirm that if a child does not develop a sense of self-worth because the child is “loved for the sake of his or her own self and is validated in his or her spontaneous aliveness,” the child will develop shame about the way he or she is (ibid.). Everything is about love and the lack of love. Too much shame-inducing and “negative, crushing judgment” creates destructive experiences. “When people experience much of this kind of destructive judgment and see no purpose in providing others with love and acceptance, they experience feelings of humiliation, anger, and hate” (ibid.). The historians of the Declaration Nostra Aetate and the Second Vatican Council cannot reconstruct the psychological profiles of the men who worked or voted on the texts. Yet it is important to take note of the need to build a link between theological convictions and the individual structures of behavior, emotions and affects of those persons. It is our task as women, men and queer to assess the bio-psycho-social integrity of oneself, to assess talents and defects, weaknesses, and strengths and to work with oneself. It is our task to start working with ourselves every day in order to overcome destructive traits and struggle to achieve one’s personal integrity. Holistic well-being may not be attained easily or at all; suffering does not desert us, and we may try unsuccessfully to experience integrity, but persevering every day is worth the effort. Persevering on the way to this psycho-social integrity is a task that we are called upon to do as women, men and queer. It is important as a theologian to assess that this daily work of care for oneself and one’s personal integrity is not a question of religious conviction, faith, prayer or spirituality. Assessing one’s personal integrity on the basis of one’s psycho-social biography is a very natural experience and may be performed with the help of a two-valued logic of speech-acts. The choice is to realize or not to realize dignity. If I am not able to assess my personal integrity, I am not able to love and I am not able to theologize with dignity. In other words: Go’d is not a substitute for my personal integrity.

When women, men and queer conduct a religious practice or ritual, their emotions, affects, and behavior become somewhat hidden, but do not disappear. For persons conducting a religious practice it is important that they assess their feelings. When dealing with spirituality it is important to feel whether I am ok or not ok. Feeling ok is an important criterion for a good and authentic spiritual experience. Personal integrity is the a priori of spirituality and religion. Spiritual experiences are always experiences of natural bodies, of women, men and queer. Personal integrity or the status of personal integrity was never a theme at the Second Vatican Council. The Council fathers and the theological experts were never asked to speak about their personal sensitivities. To the contrary, religious socialization in seminaries, novitiates and colleges concentrates on conditioning priests and religious to not take their personal needs, desires, feelings and emotions seriously. Desire, lust and well-being, self-esteem and creativity, the expression of emotions and speaking about one’s feelings are all considered under the suspicion of pride and sin. This socialization results in being ashamed of one’s joyful emotions and in permanently disciplining oneself to suppress one’s positive feelings. Feeling ashamed of one’s sinfulness was ok and guilt feelings were cultured. Expressing negative feelings toward others, for example against the Jewish people, was apparently ok, because those feelings concerned the enemies of Jesus Christ.

It is not my business or competence to psychologically analyze and describe the spirituality of Council fathers or the popes. I simply wonder how a person who lived ascetically, like Paul VI, who practiced self-flagellation and wore a cilice, was able to inflict pain on himself but could not feel empathy for the pain of Jewish women, men and queer, who were profoundly hurt by antisemitism, especially Catholic antisemitism. Trying to imitate the passion of Jesus Christ does not help and does not do any good if I do not try to imitate the love of Jesus Christ. The Catholic convert Maritain was able to reach Paul VI’s heart. I doubt that Paul VI understood the pain Maritain felt with regard to Catholic antisemitism. Centuries of Catholic antisemitic polemic lastingly conditioned the mentality and views of millions of Catholics.

On Passion Sunday, April 4, 1965, Paul VI effectively asserted in his homily in the Roman Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe that the Hebrew people killed Jesus Christ. The Gospel tells of the encounter between Jesus and the Hebrew people, who did not recognize the Messiah but instead fought him, hurled abuse at him, slandered him and ultimately killed him (Paul VI. 1965b. “Omelia di Paolo VI,” The Holy See. https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/homilies/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19650404.html). Paul VI speaks of the entire Hebrew people. It was historically and exegetically clear that this did not correspond to the facts. Paul VI should have known better. Jesus was a Jew, his parents were Jews, and his disciples and followers were Jews, women, and men.