Vatican’s New Catechism Generally Well Received by Jewish Experts

It is a measure of just how far the Catholic attitude toward Jews and Judaism has evolved in recent years that the church’s new catechism has been generally well received by Jewish experts.

These interreligious affairs experts say the document is basically fair and balanced when it comes to issues of Jewish concern.

But the catechism’s gaps and omissions on these issues also illustrate precisely where there is need for improvement in the Catholic understanding of Judaism, observers say.

The 676-page “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” signed by the pope in October and released in French last month, is the Vatican’s official blueprint for the teaching of Catholicism worldwide.

It is intended to consolidate the lessons of the church on thousands of theological issues which have been elucidated since Vatican Council II opened three decades ago. It is to be used in concert with Vatican Council II documents and explications, rather than supplant them.

The catechism has been seven years and several drafts in the making, and is the first such document to be promulgated by the Vatican since the 16th century.

It will be used by priests, educators and publishers as the foundation of what they teach to children and adults about Catholicism.

Official translations into English, Spanish, German, Italian and Latin are slated for publication early in 1993.

In the meantime, American Jewish interreligious affairs experts have translated the French version to analyze its contents.

The catechism includes many issues related to Jews and Judaism, some of which were applauded by Jewish commentators, others criticized.

One positive aspect noted by analysts is the repeated emphasis on Christianity’s roots in Judaism, through frequent reiterations of the Jewishness of Mary and Jesus.

The language of Vatican II, which revolutionized Catholicism’s attitudes toward Jews and Judaism, is incorporated throughout the catechism.

One section, for example, states that Jews are not collectively responsible for the death of Jesus and that Jews should never be presented as if they are rejected by God.

While that clear and unequivocal repudiation of the blood libel was welcomed by the Jewish analysts, it did not go far enough, said Rabbi Leon Klenicki, director of interfaith affairs for the Anti-Defamation League.

It would have been appropriate to include a condemnation of anti-Semitism at that point, said Klenicki. “It would help educators understand that the anti- Judaism of the New Testament, if it’s not explained, opens the door to anti- Semitism, as it has through the centuries.”

Rabbi Jack Bemporad, director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding at Sacred Heart University, described the lack of guidance within the catechism on interpreting dicey Christian biblical statements as worrisome.

“Unless read contextually, many New Testament statements appear to be anti- Jewish,” he said.

And while the catechism condemns racism and discrimination, there is no specific mention of anti-Semitism or of the Holocaust.

That lack of specificity contrasts sharply with recent statements by Catholic leaders, including the pope, who have denounced hatred of Jews as a sin, and have shown sensitivity toward the Holocaust.

That gap is “a disappointment,” said Bemporad.

The closest the catechism comes to addressing the Holocaust is in a section that describes the extermination of a people or an ethnic minority as “a mortal sin.”

A section applauded by both Klenicki and Rabbi A. James Rudin, director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee is one in which Catholics are urged to gain a better understanding of the Jewish faith because it will provide a better understanding of the Christian liturgy.

On the whole, the catechism “consolidates, rather than retreats from Vatican II, but doesn’t break any new ground,” according to Rudin.

It gives “final authority to what we’ve worked on for 30 years,” he said.

In all, there are 23 index references to Jews and Judaism, and more to the nation of Israel, which is mentioned in the theological sense rather than in a modern political context.

But the analysts disagreed as to whether the new catechism fully respects the integrity of Judaism and the Jewish people’s relationship with God.

According to Klenicki, the catechism gives “official sanction to the teaching of contempt” for Judaism because, in his interpretation, it implies in several places that “we Jews appear only to prepare the way for Jesus. There is no reference to Judaism after the coming of Jesus,” he said.

But according to Bemporad, the unique and irrevocable nature of Jews’ covenant with God is stated clearly in the catechism.

And, said Rudin, while the catechism “clearly speaks of the ultimate truth of Christianity as a faith commitment, it does not advance this truth by defaming, denigrating or debasing Jews or Judaism.

“This is a Christian document, so of course it states that the ultimate religious truth is Jesus and Christianity, but not at the expens of Jews or Judaism,” he said.

The instances where the catechism does not treat Judaism fully or fairly could have been prevented had a draft of the document been brought for review to Jewish experts involved with Christian-Jewish dialogue, said Bemporad.

But this was not possible within the current official framework for Catholic- Jewish dialogue, Bemporad pointed out. One of the Jewish partners is the Synagogue Council of America; its Orthodox members prohibit any discussions of theological issues in that dialogue.

Bemporad founded the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding at Sacred Heart University a year ago precisely to be able to work around the “theology” obstacle.