• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 The Catholic Synod statement on Israeli settlements
by Frank Kaufmann Thursday, November 11, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI convened the first Special Assembly for the Middle East of theSynod of Bishops inVatican Cityfrom October 10th to 24th. More than 170Catholic bishopsfrom Islamic countries, as well as Roman officials, non-CatholicChristians and academic experts discussed the future of Christian communities inthe Middle East [1]. The official objective of the synod was “to strengthen Christian identity andpromote ecumenism inMuslimcountries.” It began with a mass in Peter's Basilica,Vatican, in which Benedict XVI said (among other things),"The Middle East is the land of the exodus and of the return from exile, theland where Jesuslived, died and resurrected, the cradle of the church,established to bring the Gospel of Christ to the borders of the world."And we too as believers, look at the Middle East, in the prospect of thehistory of salvation."By the end of the Synod, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, head of the commissionthat drew up the statement, made the following, shocking statement:"The theme of the Promised Land cannot be used as a basis to justify thereturn of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians."We Christians cannot speak of the 'Promised Land' as an exclusive right fora privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is nolonger a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have becomethe chosen people." [2] That same day Danny Ayalon, DeputyForeign Minister of Israel, said ,"We express our disappointment thatthis important synod has become aforum for political attacks on Israel inthe best history of Arabpropaganda,the statements of Archbishop Bustrosare libel against the Jewishpeopleand the state of Israel. We call on theVatican to distance itself." [3]Foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmorperfectly offered with elegant (extreme)understatement, "The public theologicaldebate over who holds the correct1
 
interpretation of the Holy Scripture is a thing of the Middle Ages. It seems anunwise idea to try to revive it." [4]Ink flowed, echoing, extending, and expanding on these official responses,throughout Israeli and other world media, and properly so.AFP on Tuesday, October 26, reported further on the synod saying,"The Vatican moved yesterday to soothe Israeli anger over critical remarks madeby Middle East Catholic bishops."Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the synod was "largelypositive" and individual statements from bishops did not reflect the opinion of theconference."If one wishes for a synthesized expression of the positions of the [Middle Eastern]synod, one must take it from the message," he said, referring to the conference'sfinal communique." [5]But this is no distance. At best it can be described only as condescending,counterfeit, discomposing, insufficient distance.Fully regardless of ones views on Israel andPalestine, everything about thestatement of US Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, and the patronizing,anemic response of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi to Israeliofficials and citizens is problematic.Synod conclusions and statements from its designated spokesperson grow directlyfrom the opening direction offered His Holiness. Pope Benedict XVI will remain onthe record as in collusion with Bustros's statements, unless and until he does farmore to make his positions clear than sit silently behind Father Lombardi's smugcondescension.It is known already that Benedict approaches Catholicism as having the mission toevangelize. He is open about his interest to convert and appropriate believersfrom non-Catholic religions and traditions into the “one true Church.” We saw thisalso when he so perfectly offended Muslims in his 2006 Tubingen speech. Thehomily with which he opened this Synod continued the same tradition.Is such an approach problematic? Yes. Unhelpful? Yes. Out of step. I think so. But,OK. Not a sin. There are legitimate strains of Christian interpretation that affirmthe legitimacy of evangelizing non-Christians. I've written abundantly to expressunequivocal disagreement. But Christianity can legitimately be so understood. The core of the problem does not lie in this form of religious colonizing intent. The problem also does not lie in the decision of the bishops to express politicalopinion. Despite the widespread popularity of the view that religion and politicsshould remain separate, it is an errant view nevertheless. The sin of the MiddleEastern bishops was not in their decision to condemn publicly Israeli policy.Religious leaders bear responsibility to speak on policy and and politiciansespecially as pertains to the ideals of  justice, compassion, and related virtues. The2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...