From Camera.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Media Analyses
October 28, 2010 by Dexter Van Zile
Fame Comes for the Archbishop
Lebanese-born Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros garnered
worldwide attention at the end of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle
East in the Vatican when he assailed the belief held by many Jews (and
Christians) that God's promise of the land to the Jewish people is
irrevocable.
According to CNN reported Bustros asserted on Oct. 25 that “We
Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for
a privileged Jewish people.” He also stated “This promise was nullified
by Christ,” and that “There is no longer a chosen people -- all men and
women of all countries have become the chosen people.”
These comments set off a row between Israel and the Vatican but will
have little impact on the opinion of lay Catholics in the U.S., most of
whom have never heard of the Archbishop or of the community of Greek
Melkites that he leads. Still, with his statement, the Archbishop
achieved a brief moment of notoriety that will fade long before the
damage he has caused.
Archbishop Bustros's post-synod comments harkened back to an era prior
to the Second Vatican Council when the Roman Catholic Church embraced a
naked supersessionism that contradicts the spirit, if not the letter of
Nostra Aetate, a declaration issued by the Second Vatican Council that
called for a change in the Church's theological mindset toward the
Jewish people. (The Vatican's affirmation of Nostra Aetate was, by the
way, opposed by many Arab Christians living in the Middle East for fear
that it would underscore the legitimacy of a Jewish state.)
In an effort to diffuse the controversy surrounding the Archbishop's
statement, Church officials have referred observers to the “official”
document issued by the synod. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi
stated that “If one wants a summary of the synod's position, attention
must currently be paid to the ‘Message,' which is currently the only
written text approved by the synod in the past few days.” (The Jewish
Advocate, Oct. 29, 2010, page 3.)
Problem with Official Statement
This raises another issue: For all the outrage that the Archbishop
Bustros' comments sparked, the “Message” issued by the synod itself is
also problematic. Like many other Christian statements regarding the
Arab-Israeli conflict, the “Message” issued by the synod subjects Israel
and Jews to harsh scrutiny while treating Israel's adversaries and
Muslim leaders with kid gloves.
For example, it admonishes the Jews that
Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God
to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable. On the contrary,
recourse to religion must leave every person to see the face of God in
others and to treat them according to their God-given prerogatives and
God's commandments, namely according to God's bountiful goodness, mercy,
justice and love for us.
Compare this passage of the document – which obliquely accuses Israel of
using the bible to justify the mistreatment of Palestinians – with the
message it offers to Muslims:
Since the appearance of Islam in the seventh century and to the present,
we have lived together and we have collaborated in the creation of our
common civilisation. As in the past and still existent today, some
imbalances are present in our relations. Through dialogue we must avoid
all imbalances and misunderstandings.
If there is an “imbalance,” anywhere, it is in this document itself. The
statement obliquely condemns Jews for using scripture for nefarious
purposes but offers not one word of condemnation for the use of the
Koran to mistreat religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East,
which according to the testimony offered by the Bishops themselves, is
clearly a problem.
For example, Monsignor Raboula Antoine Beylouni, Titular Archbishop of
Mardin of the Syrians, Curia Bishop of Antioch of the Syrians (Lebanon)
made a statement during the Synod about the obstacles to religious
dialogue between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East, which he
says is oftentimes “difficult and ineffective.” The difficulties are not
limited to discussions of dogma, the Monsignor said. For “even the
subjects of a practical and social order are difficult to discuss when
the Koran or the Sunna discusses them.” He continued:
Here are some difficulties which we have faced:
- The Koran inculcates in the Muslim pride in being the only true and
complete religion, taught by the greatest prophet, because he was the
last one. The Muslim is part of the privileged nation, and speaks the
language of God, the language of Paradise, the Arabic language. This is
why, he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority, and with the
certitude of being victorious.
The Koran, supposedly written by God Himself, from beginning to end,
gives the same value to all that is written: dogma that supercedes all
law or practice.
In the Koran, men and women are not equal, not even in marriage itself
where the man takes several wives and can divorce at his pleasure; nor
in the heritage where man takes double; nor in the testifying before
judges where the voice of one man is equal to the voice of two women, etc...
The Koran allows the Muslim to hide the truth from the Christian, and to
speak and act contrary to how he thinks and believes.
In the Koran, there are contradictory verses which annul others, which
gives the Muslim the possibility of using one or the other to his
advantage, and therefore he can tell the Christian that he is humble and
pious and believes in God, just as he can treat him as impious, apostate
and idolatrous.
The Koran gives the Muslim the right to judge Christians and to kill
them for the Jihad (the holy war). It commands the imposition of
religion through force, with the sword. The history of invasions bears
witness to this. This is why the Muslims do not recognize religious
freedom, for themselves or for others. And it isn't surprising to see
all the Arab countries and Muslims refusing the whole of the “Human
Rights” instituted by the United Nations.
This is a troubling litany of problems offered by Titular Archbishop
Beylouni, but for some reason, the final document issued by the Synod
made no reference to any of them. Did the synod not trust Monsiginor
Beylouni's testimony?
Interestingly enough, Archbishop Bustros – who assailed Israel at the
end of the synod – made similar statements in 2006. Speaking to a
Catholic newspaper in Florida, the Archbishop acknowledged the problem a
literalist interpretation of the Koran poses to Muslims and their
neighbors in the Middle East. The article states, in part, the following:
While Islam has many different interpretations and no central arbiter of
doctrine, such as the pope, he said, most Muslims are taught to
interpret the Quran literally. Following its precepts, they divide the
world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb – the land of Islam and the land
of war, the land conquered by Muslims and the land yet to be conquered
by Muslims.
Like Christians, Muslims are obligated to "convert nonbelievers." Unlike
Christianity, however, "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against
unbelievers." Jihad, or holy war, is justified as self-defense whenever
Islam is threatened – whether by a conquering power or an offensive cartoon.
Most Muslims do not take those interpretations of Islamic teaching as
far as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, Archbishop Bustros said. But
"the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and
practice," he added.
Although Islam calls itself a religion of peace, the peace it preaches
is the literal interpretation of Islam, which means "surrender to the
will of God."
"The peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and
to God's power based on Islamic law," Archbishop Bustros said. "They
have to defend this peace of God even by force."
Again, these are serious problems, and there was not one word of
criticism leveled at Muslim leaders in the document. Why the silence?
Two State Solution, but …
It is important to note that the official document issued by the synod
calls for a two state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as does a
statement issued by the Archbishop himself on Oct. 23 in which he states
that “Palestinians and Israelis each have the right to have and to live
in a sovereign State with secure borders.”
Accompanying the Archbishop's affirmation, however, is the following
assessment of Israeli political life:
Israelis cannot betray either their faith or their nationalism.
According to the Bible, the State of Israel – the national territory of
the Kingdom of Israel – is the whole of Palestine. From the perspective
of faith Palestine is the Promised Land of the chosen people and the
national Homeland of the nationalist dream of Judaism.
Hence we can understand that any Prime Minister, Member of Parliament or
other Israeli leader who proposes a solution that fails to take into
account those two requirements – of faith and nationalism – would be
seen as a traitor to his faith and nation.
The decision to decree that Israel is a Jewish country originates in
this duality that underlies the State of Israel, a duality that,
obligatorily, leads into an impasse every attempt at negotiations even
if they are not still-born. Anyway, as at Masada, this is Jewish suicide.
Here, the Archbishop espouses a narrative in which he portrays Israel as
unable to achieve peace with the Palestinians because of its Jewish
identity.
Specter of Supersessionism
The problem with the Archbishop's post-synodical comments – official or
not – is that by raising the specter of Catholic supersessionism, he
gives Israel's adversaries in the Middle East good reason to think that
in some quarters of Christianity at least, Jews are still regarded as an
apostate fallen race who are not entitled to a sovereign state of their own.
Yes, on one hand, the Synod and the Archbishop himself spoke in
political and worldly terms about the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish
state. But on a theological level, the Archbishop has introduced doubt
about the Church's attitude toward the Jewish people and their state. To
be sure, the Archbishop does not speak for the entire church and his
statement seems to contradict Pope Benedict's statement (issued prior to
his Papacy) that God's covenant with the Jews “has never been revoked.”
The Vatican's response to the Archbishop's statement will provide an
important clue as to what type of leadership it will provide to its
members outside of Europe and the United States where the Church's
membership is growing rapidly.
This is an important issue. Christians outside the U.S. and Europe do
not feel responsible for the Holocaust. Catholics in the Third World are
also much less concerned about Christian-Jewish dialogue than their
co-religionists in the West for one simple reason – they have little
contact with Jews. Consequently, indifference and in some instances,
outright contempt for Jews and Israel oftentimes manifests itself in
organizations whose constituencies are located in the Third World.
To be sure, Catholic leaders, have in the main, spoken in much more
responsible terms than the World Council of Churches headquartered in
Switzerland and mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. Despite the
Archbishop's outburst, the Vatican has stated that anti-Zionism
sometimes serves as a “screen” for anti-Semitism.”
Hilarion Capucci
Regardless of how the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy responds to the
controversy surrounding Archbishop Bustros' remarks, his statement
should not come as a surprise. Arab Christians, including Melkite
leaders, have been known to assail Israel.
For example, a few months ago, another Melkite Archbishop – Hilarion
Capucci – was a passenger onboard the Mavi Marmara, the vessel that
attempted to run Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Most people would think it's pretty irresponsible for a man of the cloth
to rub shoulders with members of the IHH, a terrorist organization
headquartered in Turkey that has ties to Hamas, but not with Capucci's
supporters who started a now-deleted Facebook page in his honor and
posted comments about how proud they were of what he did.
As outrageous as this support is, Capucci enjoyed similar support when
he was convicted of running guns into the West Bank for the PLO even
though some of the weapons he smuggled into the West Bank were used to
kill an Israeli taxi driver in Jerusalem.
© CAMERA • 2010 • All rights reserved
Posts
