"Truth and Tolerance", Cardinal J. Ratzinger

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]“Thus any conversation between Christian and Jew in which abandonment of the other partner’s faith is a silent hope must be regarded as offensive to one’s religious and human dignity.”

Why?

If you are a supporter of capitalism and I of communism, is it offensive for either of us to silentily hope that the other will change his view?[/b]

Why?

If you are a supporter of capitalism and I of communism, is it offensive for either of us to silentily hope that the other will change his view?

No, let’s stick with the subject at hand, which has as a backdrop the entire Jewish-Christian history; and that is what Heschel is speaking out of, not political philosophy. (And that is why I think this thread has value.) It is out of that history that Heschel speaks of “condescension”—and others speak of supercessionism. I also want to note that the Jewish-Christian question is, because of that history, somewhat different from, say, a Christian-Buddhist question.

So:

(1) Do you agree with Heschel’s assessment of religious pluralism (a question which was mentioned in Ivanhoe’s opening post)?

(2) Was Heschel’s hope realized—that is, that the Catholic Church has come to reverence Judaism qua Judaism, with no effort toward conversion? I don’t think most Protestants have, maybe some.

(3) I have had the feeling that RCC’s answer to the questions Heschel posed to Weigel is now simply, “No, we no longer think that.” Am I wrong?

[NOTE: I have to admit to a bit of personal interest in asking these questions. A number of years ago, I found out that I have some Jewish ancestry—ancestry that had been kept secret in my family (Out of what? Shame? Embarrassment? Simple anti-Semitism?) for years, even to the extent of destroying birth certificates! A few people in my family have expressed discomfort with my studies of Judaism since finding all that out. It has just sharpened my interest in Jewish-Christian relations more than, again. Christian-Buddhist relations. With all that said, I don’t think anybody posting here is an anti-Semite, or even an anti-Judaist.]

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Does not the all-inclusiveness of God contradict the exclusiveness of any particular religion?....

I'm sorry - but that just sounds like word-play to me.

The objects (referands) of the terms "inclusiveness" and "exclusiveness" in the above sentence are not the same. [God's] inclusiveness refers to people, whereas [religious] exclusiveness refers to propositions.[/b]

You might be right, but—

Is the Middle Eastern history of God, as recorded in the Bible, the whole history of God’s relationship with humanity? Did God make no revelation to those in India where Hinduism developed? Or among (American) Indians who were practicing some form of Shamanism 8,000 years ago? Is all other religious history not only superceded, but rendered retroactively in error, by a very late event in human history? Did God never want any of those other religions? Was God always “offended” by their erroneous understandings?

I suspect these questions may have no satisfactory answer. I am reminded, however, of a story by rabbi and author Chaim Potok (The Chosen, The Book of Lights, My Name is Asher Lev) about when he was a chaplain in Korea. He traveled to Kyoto on a leave, and visited all the religious temples and sites. At one site—Shinto, I think—he asked a local Japanese person about Shinto and its differences from Buddhism, etc. During the exchange, the Japanese asked Potok, “And what religion are you?” Potok replied that he was a Jew. In total innocence, the Japanese asked, “And what is a Jew?” She had absolutely no idea. Potok was, perhaps somewhat naively, stunned. He had grown up in New York, and everyone knew what a Jew was. There were Jews and non-Jews, particularly Christians, and they knew the difference. He had never imagined a culture where someone would just not have any idea what he meant when he said he was a Jew.

Originally posted by vistesd
You might be right, but—

Is the Middle Eastern history of God, as recorded in the Bible, the whole history of God’s relationship with humanity? Did God make no revelation to those in India where Hinduism developed? Or among (American) Indians who were practicing some form of Shamanism 8,000 years ago? Is all other religious history not only superceded, ...[text shortened]... ed a culture where someone would just not have any idea what he meant when he said he was a Jew.

I better be careful here but nearly every religion supercedes all others in the minds of the faithful.

factoid:
ratzinger means one that makes confectionary cakes from rats
from the latin rat for rat and zinger for a snack cake

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I better be careful here but nearly every religion supercedes all others in the minds of the faithful.

You’re right, and I have to clarify that: the particular supercessionism I am talking about is when a new religion is formed, based on a new “revelation” out of an older one. Then the later one claims that those who adhere to the older form—or even a developing form that does not include that particular “new revelation,” as in rabbinical Judaism—is thereby incomplete and in error. In a sense, the Sadducees, in upholding the Temple tradition and denying the oral tradition (“Oral Torah” ) held to by the rabbis (read, at least in part, the Pharisees), saw the rabbis as trying to “supercede” the Temple hierarchy.

Originally posted by vistesd
You’re right, and I have to clarify that: the particular supercessionism I am talking about is when a new religion is formed, based on a new “revelation” out of an older one. Then the later one claims that those who adhere to the older form—or even a developing form that does not include that particular “new revelation,” as in rabbinical Judaism—is thereby ...[text shortened]... at least in part, the Pharisees), saw the rabbis as trying to “supercede” the Temple hierarchy.

Yes, I see that in the particular case of Jew and Christian beliefs.
Which explains (perhaps) why most religions are conservative.
I mean, if you have it all figured out, who needs to try anymore?
Something like that.

Re Dominus Iesus, I found this address by David Berger of the American Rabbinical Conference, in which he seems to say, “Yeah, there are things in the document that Jews have problems with, but Cardinal Ratzinger is also being accused of things he never said.” I thought it was interesting.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/articles/berger.htm

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Yes, I see that in the particular case of Jew and Christian beliefs.
Which explains (perhaps) why most religions are conservative.
I mean, if you have it all figured out, who needs to try anymore?
Something like that.

And with such a conservatism, the interesting questions to me are, “What does ‘tolerance’ mean?” Can it go so far as to appreciate—or, as Heschel puts it in the Jewish-Christian context—have some actual “reverence” for the other’s (in that context, sibling) religion? Or does it mean simply treating the other civilly and humanely while trying to convert them? And if the second, what good is interfaith dialogue? Can the principle of religious pluralism actually be honored if I believe that my way is not only right, but the only “God approved” one?

Maybe the Jews have a certain “advantage” in this—since they do not believe that Judaism is for everybody. There can also be a kind of elitism in this, of course, but not all (or even most) Jews that I read claim that; they certainly don’t claim that salvation is only for Jews (actually, salvation is not the big issue for Jews).

Originally posted by vistesd
And with such a conservatism, the interesting questions to me are, “What does ‘tolerance’ mean?” Can it go so far as to appreciate—or, as Heschel puts it in the Jewish-Christian context—have some actual “reverence” for the other’s (in that context, sibling) religion? Or does it mean simply treating the other civilly and humanely while trying to convert the ...[text shortened]... don’t claim that salvation is only for Jews (actually, salvation is not the big issue for Jews).

Vistesd: "salvation is not the big issue for Jews."

Then what is the big issue for Jews ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Vistesd: "salvation is not the big issue for Jews."

Then what is the big issue for Jews ?

Let me first clarify (1) that I’m talking about Judaism as religion, (2) there are variations within rabbinical Judaism as there are in Christianity, and (3) I’m simply trying to draw the main themes as I read them, and may well be arguing “Judaism at its best.”

Heschel uses the word “redemption,” by which he means redemption of God’s creation. I prefer the word tikkun, repair—repairing brokenness through acts of justice and compassion, and keeping the mitzvot (commandments; of course, Orthodox Jews differ from, say, Reconstructionist Jews, on what the mitzvot currently are—but proclaiming the God that is one is certainly central*). I would also say that this is not limited to the “mundane” dimension, but the spiritual one as well, if I may use those terms (e.g., I’m sure you would affirm the contribution of Trappist monks in their life of prayer).

Heschel says it thus: “The urgent issue [for the Jew] is not personal salvation but the prevention of mankind’s surrender to the demonic. The sanctuary has no walls; the opportunity to praise or to aid has no limits. When God is silent, man must speak in His place.” Heschel would not say that we can articulate the ultimate redemption, but only prepare the way for it. (Also, I’m not sure of the exact theological connotation of “redemption” here.)

Also: “The ancient rabbis proclaimed: ‘Pious men of all nations have a share in the life to come.’”

And: “The Jews do not maintain that the way of the Torah is the only way of serving God. ‘Let all the peoples walk each one in then name of its god, but we will walk in the name of YHVH** our God for ever and ever.’ (Micah 4:5).”

* The only real “creedal” statement of Judaism is the Shema: Shema Yisrael, YHVH eloheinu, YHVH ehad (Hear O Israel, Adonai our God, Adonai is one).

In Reconstructionist and Hasidic Judaism, perhaps more so than among Reform, Conservative and at least some Orthodox Jews, there is also a pretty vibrant stream of “monism”—God as the ultimate “all-of-all-of-it” (called Ein Sof, literally “without end,” ala the “perennial philosophy” ). It is this stream that particularly interests me. Heschel is pretty Hasidic in outlook, a descendant of Hasidic rebbes—though I don’t think he stayed within the formal Hasidic community.

** Heschel translates as “the Lord,” but it is YHVH, that is the name of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
Re Dominus Iesus,

as saint dominic always said
"oh feely mi boni bellos biscos for billy selleth all his dominos"

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Why?

If you are a supporter of capitalism and I of communism, is it offensive for either of us to silentily hope that the other will change his view?

No, let’s stick with the subject at hand, which has as a backdrop the entire Jewish-Christian history; and that is what Heschel is speaking out of, not political philosophy. (And that is why I t ...[text shortened]... h all that said, I don’t think anybody posting here is an anti-Semite, or even an anti-Judaist.][/b]

My analogy was to illustrate a simple point; we can discard it if you want. But I see no fundamental reason why hoping to "convert" the other person is offensive - whatever the history. IMO, the offence lies in the action or manner of interaction.

1. Do I agree with the statements "All religions are equally true" and "God wants religious pluralism"? No and no.

(If I misunderstood what you meant by your first question, my apologies. Could you narrow it down for me?)

2. Again, not sure what you're asking here.

Does the RCC revere Judaism? Yes - as a child reveres his/her parents; or a younger sibling reveres an older one.

Does that RCC believe that efforts should be made to convert Jews? Yes (in theory at least, if de-emphasised in practice). But the "conversion" of a Jew is essentially different to the conversion of any other non-Christian because the Jews are already living God's covenant.

3. Heschel asks Weigel a series of ambiguously-phrased questions - a single sentence reply is too simplistic.

Is it really the will of God that there be no more Judaism in the world?

In one sense, the answer would be no - because Christianity views itself as Judaism fulfilled. So, every Christian is, in a way, a follower of Judaism.

In another sense, the answer would be yes - because Christianity views the old covenants as an intermediate step in mankind's return to God.

Would it really be the triumph of God if the scrolls of the Torah were no longer taken out of the Ark and the Torah no longer read in the synagogue, our ancient Hebrew prayers in which Jesus himself worshipped no more recited, the Passover Seder no longer celebrated in our lives, the Law of Moses no longer observed in our homes?

Why would being a Christian prevent a Jew from doing any of this? How did the Early Christians live their Jewish lives?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My analogy was to illustrate a simple point; we can discard it if you want. But I see no fundamental reason why hoping to "convert" the other person is offensive - whatever the history. IMO, the offence lies in the action or manner of interaction.

1. Do I agree with the statements "All religions are equally true" and "God ...[text shortened]... tian prevent a Jew from doing any of this? How did the Early Christians live their Jewish lives?

PREFACE: I have re-read my comments below, and, except for where I address you directly, all the “yous” are general “yous,” not you personally (unless, of course, they accurately reflect your position, about which I have no idea; I just don’t want to ascribe to you thoughts that are not yours).

I’ll take these out of order:

Do I agree with the statements "All religions are equally true" and "God wants religious pluralism"? No and no.

I am using religious pluralism (and I think Heschel was too) in the way stated by the article in Ivanhoe’s post: “Pluralism holds that there are many valid ways to God among the various religions.” (italics mine) Note: “many,” not “all;” note “valid,” not “equal.” This is not the same, as saying “all religions are equally true”—or that any religion has the whole truth or all of the truth or is wholly free from error. I can accept that statement of religious pluralism; I cannot accept any of the others

But I see no fundamental reason why hoping to "convert" the other person is offensive - whatever the history. IMO, the offence lies in the action or manner of interaction.

I did not find the analogy an appropriate one because I don’t think religion is just about what you think about certain things, and political philosophy can be (of course, some people can be very “religious” and “fundamentalistic” about their political philosophy). On the other extreme, would you find my trying to convert you to Nazism offensive? That’s not an appropriate analogy either.

But the point is that my religion (or, in my case, my patchwork quilt of various strands—my coat, if you will, of many, sometimes, perhaps, still contrasting, colors) is not just philosophy: it is how I live my life. So, in some way, if you say to me: “You’re religion is invalid,” you are telling me that how I go about living my life, everyday, is invalid—not just that I do some wrong things, commit some errors, have some faulty thinking—all of which I freely admit I have done and will likely do again. I am willing to discuss how I might be living my life wrongly, if you are as well. But, insist that I am alienated from God or the ground of my being because of it—even though that is not my experience—and then, yes, you have offended me. Adopt an attitude that my disagreement with you must be based on ignorance, stupidity or perverseness—and then, yes, you have offended me. Tell me that you accept some things on faith in order that your religion might be “a lamp to guide your feet” (to borrow Ivanhoe’s felicitous phrase), and I cannot argue; insist that I must accept all the same things on faith in order for my spiritual journey to be valid—well, I simply reject that.

Now, Heschel’s statement was about “silent hope” of the other abandoning their faith. I would take that to mean that the hope is uncommunicated, that it has not been honestly spoken. Moving from Heschel, however, if the hope for conversion is spoken as the purpose for the other discussing religion with me, very soon I will simply end the discussion. It’s no longer a dialogue of mutual interest and regard, but has become one in which one party views him/herself as the “seller,” and the other as a prospective “buyer”—it has become a relationship of unequal regard (note that I do not say “dis-regard” or disrespect), not just in terms of intellectual opinions, but in terms of the person. Contrast that with a situation in which one party really has no desire to assume the role of “seller,” but the other party expresses openness as a potential “buyer”—e.g., “Tell me about you’re religion; maybe there’s some truth in it that I need to know. Maybe it can become ‘a lamp to guide my feet.’” Contrast that with two parties who discuss—even argue—their respective religions with no thought of conversion whatsoever, but only to get to know one another better, to understand and even appreciate different viewpoints. Do you see the difference in the relationship in these scenarios? (If you dislike the terms “buyer” and “seller,” substitute “teacher and student.” In the first scenario, one party assumes the role of teacher—and assigns the role of student to the other, whether the assignment is spoken or not. In the second scenario, one party assumes the role of student, and asks the other to assume the role of teacher. In the third scenario, each party is in turn now teacher, now student.)


With regard to the viewpoint of the RCC, LH, I think you have answered my questions, even though the questions may have been poorly put. The RCC does have a mission to convert the Jews to Christianity—as well as everyone to Catholicism, I assume. So be it. If that is what Cardinal Ratzinger has been saying, at least he is honest and forthright about it.

(I want to stress here, for other readers, that we talking about Jews as followers of Judaism—not racially or in any other sense. The question, “whether there should be no Jews,” is strictly in terms of the religion.)

In another sense, the answer would be yes - because Christianity views the old covenants as an intermediate step in mankind's return to God.

So do Jews. But they do not see it as the “old covenant.” They see it as their covenant—not everyone’s, just theirs.

Why would being a Christian prevent a Jew from doing any of this? How did the Early Christians live their Jewish lives?

I know of no such Christian liturgies, outside of “messianic Judaism.” Are there such liturgies in the RCC? Does not the Jewish understanding of the Shema conflict with the Christian understanding of the Trinity? Would not a “Christianized” liturgy be merely an empty form, a remembrance, perhaps, of things past but no longer valid or spiritually efficacious?

__________________________________

LH, I have no desire to dissuade you from Catholicism as your spiritual path. I think there are errors in Catholicism, as well as various expressions of truth—but I also think that none of the religions are free from error, because they are human attempts to relate to the divine (or, as bbarr would say, to the “real” ). I see that as inescapable (we have discussed this before, at some length). As a non-Catholic, as a non-Christian, my only hope for you is that you journey well on that path and that it is a fountain of blessings for you—and I have no reason to believe that it cannot be. I see it as a valid path, neither more nor less valid than my own--except for me. I would harbor the same hope for a Buddhist, for a Jew, etc. Even (and perhaps especially) as we argue—argument is the Jewish way of studying Torah, and the argument continues, the argument itself is part of following the way (torah), not just a means to reach some conclusion; I think that says something about the differing approaches.

The reward of choosing one path, and sticking to it, is that one can go deep and far; the danger is that one can lapse into a dogmatic presumption that there are not other valid paths from which one can learn, a spiritual "narrowness." The reward of wandering about along different paths (and sometimes off the path) is insight into (and from) different perspectives; the danger is a scattered dilettantism, or a going round in circles--yes, even falling off a cliff. Neither is a riskless approach.
_________________________________

Let me close with a metaphor. A priest I knew once said it is as if God were an immense, many-faceted gem—so immense that no one can see all the facets (even from the inside). The facets refract the (internal) light in many colors. Why should anyone of us assume that our perspective captures the whole of it; or that because another’s description from their perspective does not conform to ours, that their view is necessarily invalid; or that our perspective presents the best viewpoint for everyone? What we cannot see, we call mystery; sometimes the perspective from where someone else stands can shed some light on the mystery. (This is a statement of perspectivism, not relativism, as I understand the terms.)

I got tired of editing my last post, so I do want to qualify my statements somewhat:

The fact that you might hope that I would become Catholic in no way offends me. I take it as a friendly hope. If someone says to me, you know, I think my chosen path would be a better one for you—I will take that as a friendly suggestion, and perhaps entertain what they have to say, at least as long as it is something new.

However, if someone insists that my spiritual life is simply invalid because I am not an orthodox member of their religion—then I simply walk away (all right, since I’m a contentious cuss, first I’ll argue, then walk away). If someone insists on treating me only as a prospective convert, then I don’t want to take part; it has become a relationship of unequal regard in that I have no desire to convert them—not even as a friendly hope. My friendly hope, as I said, is that they journey well on their path and that it be a fountain of blessings for them. And I am able to argue with them without having any other hope.

I’m probably not getting at this well. Have you read Martin Buber’s I and Thou? He talks about I-You relations versus I-It relations. An example of his I-It relation would be when I go to the store to buy a pair of shoes: the relationship between myself and the shoe salesman, while being one of mutual interest in the market sense, is an instrumental and transactional relationship—I-It. (Note that these are not “bad” relationships.) Now, suppose that the salesman happens to mention that a loved one just died—perhaps he realizes that he is a bit distracted with grief, and perhaps showing some signs of emotion. If I simply say, “That’s too bad” as a matter of civility and no more, I have not really changed the relationship at all. However, if I say, with real concern and willingness to listen: “I’m really very sorry to hear that. How is it going with you? If you don’t want to talk about it, I understand; but if it helps, I can be here for you.” Now the relationship can be moved to one of I-You—no longer instrumental, no longer buyer to seller, but person to person.

Tolerance does not necessarily involve more than the I-It, unless it moves (when it can move without pretense) to appreciation and real regard for our differences. Sometimes that is not possible, through no one’s fault.

Now, that is perhaps more difficult in argument. But Jacob Neusner argues that argument can be a sign of respect and regard—I consider you as worthy to engage, and not simply to dismiss, or to pretend acquiescence in order to close the relationship. When we care passionately about things, it is natural for argument to be at the level of I-It—nothing inherently wrong about that. But argument—even passionate argument—can occur within the I-You relationship, within a loving relationship. [Read the poignant scene of father-son Torah study in Chaim Potok’s The Chosen sometime (it is not in the film, and the film lacks thereby) to see what I mean.] I have witnessed it, I have experienced it.