NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER has a piece in it that, if I'd been more alert to the news than I have been this last two weeks, I'd have seen it coming because I read an article at NRC about the homily that started the trouble.
Israel's Chief Rabbinate has written a letter to Pope Francis conveying its “distress” at comments he made suggesting Jewish law, as written in the Torah, is obsolete.
The letter, first reported on by Reuters, was sent by Rabbi Rasson Arousi, chair of the Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel for Dialogue with the Holy See. Arousi was referring to a homily Francis made during a general audience on Aug. 11.
In that homily, or sermon, the pope reflected on the Apostle Paul's views in the New Testament that the Torah does not give life.
Speaking of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the pope said: "It does not offer the fulfillment of the promise because it is not capable of being able to fulfill it ... Those who seek life need to look to the promise and to its fulfillment in Christ."
That statement comes close to supersessionism, also called replacement theology— the belief that the Christian faith has replaced or supplanted Judaism, a view the Catholic Church repudiated. In a 1965 landmark Vatican declaration, Nostra Aetate, the church established a new rapport between Jews and Catholics.
"In his homily, the pope presents the Christian faith as not just superseding the Torah; but asserts that the latter no longer gives life, implying that Jewish religious practice in the present era is rendered obsolete," Arousi wrote in the letter.
"This is in effect part and parcel of the 'teaching of contempt' towards Jews and Judaism that we had thought had been fully repudiated by the Church," he wrote.
I'm certain that Pope Francis was not repudiating Nostra Aetate, one of the most important documents in the history of the Catholic Church but that he was accepting the reading of Paul which pretty much says what the Chief Rabbi is protesting. Or does it?
I would start by saying that the Catholic liturgy, now, announces that The Law (of Moses) gives life because it is full of readings from The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, etc. that say that, the Catholic liturgy may have more of that claim made in it than happens in many Synagogues if for no other reason than there are readings at all of the daily masses and the other liturgical texts that are supposed to be read any number of times a day contain the same texts from the Jewish scriptures. I would continue by pointing out that the same Paul who said those troublesome things in some of his most important texts, such as Romans, said that he was a Jew, a Pharissee, one of those who is "zealous for The Law" so what he said cannot be taken as meaning exactly what it seems to in a "common sense" reading of it.
I think one of the more erudite Protestant readings of that which I've read that says Paul was talking about Roman Law, is worth considering but I really don't buy it. I'd like it to be the case because it papers over a huge problem caused by that "common sense" reading of it. Though in all of these things I am certainly willing to consider the claims made, especially on the basis of who makes it. Who Pope Francis has shown himself to be certainly counts as an important part in thinking about what he said. I would contrast him in that regard with the controversy that Benedict XVI caused when he stereotyped Islam as an inherently violent religion. I had a far harder time not believing he meant that at face value based on who he was.
Just what "The Law" is is a problem. Is it the common sense meaning of the words on the page? If that's true it literally leads to death because it, in so many places, gives that as the sentence for all kinds of things. Though as Marilynne Robinson said, it is doubtful that that sentence was ever much enforced. That can be contrasted to the Commandments of Jesus which do not instruct people to kill other people - that must be pointed out as well. But I doubt any of it was to be taken literally as American "strict-constructionists" "originalists" and other aliases fascist-gangster legal scholarship, proclaim law must be or it is meaningless. I believe that because in the very scriptures Jewish and Christian, the claim is that a deeper meaning lies behind those, "The Law" which is to be "written on the hearts" of the faithful.
Even the words on the page are only significant in so far as they have meaning in the minds and IN THE ACTIONS of human beings, if not all flesh. Jesus said that "the law" kills but the spirit gives life. I certainly would think that's clearly true of any law, that it has meaning, reality only in so far as it is made real in the minds and acts of those for whom The Law is given. And that meaning is certainly not uniform in the minds and lives, certainly not in the words said about The Law. The great Jewish practice of disputing the meaning of The Law is one of its glories and, like all such human articulation of The Law or any laws, it is fraught with danger and peril, sometimes to human life itself.
I am certain that the level of the Rabbinate that the Chief Rabbi inhabits must deal with all kinds of evil claims about, evil interpretations of The Law, some of those destructive of life as in some of the more evil of pseudo-religious cults. That is certainly an instance of "The Law" leading to death. There are several cults, some which are nothing more than mind-control cults under a corrupt "rabbi" or even a dynasty of such absolute monarchs (whenever you read that word, it means "gangster") which are certainly known to use The Law to destroy life, to enslave and oppress. That's one of the dangers in codifying legal codes, as soon as a lawyer sees the text they start trying to figure out ways to use it to such ends, the history of human law that ignores that universal use of such legal codes is itself a tool of such gangsterism.
The Spirit being what makes The Law into something that gives life is as true of The Law in Judaism as it is in Christianity. It's certainly true for Catholic law which can be used for the utmost evil as many a canon lawyer has used it for, including many within the Vatican and holding high Church offices. The recently ill and reportedly recovering Raymond Burke is someone I've condemned for that, I could name dozens, many dozens of others who, as well, embody the warnings of Paul against that kind of law that kills. Pope Francis is one of their chief targets these days, I'm sure some of them seeing this unfortunate sermon will be rubbing their dirty palms together thinking how they can use it.
I'm sure an explanation will be given, I would wait till we read it to judge what Pope Francis meant. If it furthers the discussion of how any written legal code can be used to kill without the inspiration of The Spirit, it will be worthwhile, if it just papers over the dispute, it will be a wasted opportunity. If the entire history of such disputes among religions were conducted in the spirit of a rigorous attempt to find The Spirit behind The Law, it would be a lot less seedy than it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment