Frank Sinatra’s Support of Israel & the Jewish People

According to Blue-Eyes.com, Francis Albert Sinatra may have been one of America ‘s most famous Italian Catholics, but he kept the Jewish people and the State of Israel close to his heart, manifesting life-long commitments to fighting anti-Semitism and to activism on behalf of Israel .. Sinatra stepped forward in the early 1940s, when big names were needed to rouse America i nto saving Europe’s remaining Jews, and he sang at an “Action for Palestine ” rally (1947). He sat on the board of trustees of the SimonWiesenthal Center; and he donated over $1 million to Jerusalem's Hebrew University, which honored him by dedicating the Frank Sinatra International Student Center.. (The Center made heartbreaking headlines when terrorists bombed it in 2002, killing nine people.) As the result of his support for the Jewish State, his movies and records were banned in some Arab countries.

Sinatra helped Teddy Kollek, later the long-serving mayor of Jerusalem but then a member of the Haganah, by serving as a $1 million money-runner that helped Israel win the war. The Copacabana NYC nightclub, which was very much run and controlled by the same Luciano-related New York mafia crowd with whom Sinatra had become enmeshed, happened to be next door to the hotel out of which Haganah members were operating. In his autobiography, Kollek relates how, trying in March 1948 to circumvent an arms boycott imposed by President Harry Truman on the Jewish fighters in Eretz Yisroel, he needed to smuggle about $1 million in cash to an Irish ship captain docked in the Port of New York. The young Kollek spotted Sinatra at the bar and, afraid of being intercepted by federal agents, asked for help. In the early hours of the morning, the singer went out the back door with the money in a paper bag and successfully delivered it to the pier.

The origins of Sinatra’s love affair with the Jewish people are not clear but, for years, the Hollywood icon wore a small mezuzah around his neck, a gift from Mrs. Golden, an elderly Jewish neighbor who cared for him during his boyhood in Hoboken, N.J. (years later, he honored her by purchasing a quarter million dollars’ worth of Israel bonds). He protected his Jewish friends, once responding to an anti-Semitic remark at a party by simply punching the offender. Time magazine reported that Sinatra walked out on the christening of his own son when the priest refused to allow a Jewish friend to be the godfather. As late as 1979, he raged over the fact that a Palm Springs cemetery official in California declared that he could n ot arrange the burial of a deceased Jewish friend over the Thanksgiving holiday; Sinatra again — threatened to punch him in the nose.

Sinatra famously played the role of a pilot in Cast a Giant Shadow, the 1966 film filmed in Israel and starring friend Kirk Douglas as Mickey Marcus, the Jewish-American colonel who fought and died in Israel’s war for independence (Sinatra dive-bombs Egyptian tanks with seltzer bottles!) He donated his salary for the part to the Arab-Israeli Youth Center in Nazareth , and he also made a significant contribution to the making of Genocide, a film about the Holocaust, and helped raise funds for the film. Less known is Sinatra in Israel (1962), a short 30-minute featurette he made in which he sang In the Still of the Night and Without a Song. He also starred in The House I Live In (1945), a ten-minute short film made to oppose anti-Semitism at the end of World War II, which received an Honorary Academy Award and a special Golden Globe award in 1946.

A 1975 benefit concert recorded live in Jerusalem was officially released only in Brazil. Frank’s in fine form in STILL another impossible to find cd. Oy Vey !

Quiz: Are you living out the Church's mission of evangelization?

I am not the most punctual person in the world. Since the AHC conference last October I have wanted to write about the topic of evangelization and proselytism. This project, however, was trumped in our last newsletter by our commentary on Israel as "womb" of the Second Coming, as a response to the controversy with a Palestinian priest on the topic of "Catholics for Palestine" and "Catholics for Israel."

Today, the moment has come. I feel that the topic of evangelization and proselytism is timely for at least two reasons.

The first reason is the urgency of the task of the new evangelization, urgent because formerly Christian countries are seriously threatened on two fronts - by an increasingly aggressive anti-Christian secularism on the one hand, and the equally aggressive growth of Islam on the other.

The second reason is the considerable confusion that seems to reign among many Christians and especially Catholics regarding evangelization and proselytism. Confusion on this topic now would be nothing less than disastrous if  it results in neutralizing believers from carrying out precisely the Church's most critical task of our time. It would not be an exaggeration to even characterize as "work of the devil" any thought construct that would lead to the paralysis of the Church's central mission.

And so today we ask the questions: What is evangelization? What is proselytism? What is the difference between them? How should we relate to non-believers? Should we try to convert them? Or just accept and love them the way they are?

Some would have us believe that proselytism is a great problem nowadays, displaying great disrespect for people of various faiths, religions and walks of life. But is this really the case - in light the Church's definition of  proselytism - or is the real problem actually quite the opposite?

Before we go any further I would like to invite you to do a little self-evaluation quiz. This test will help you to determine where you stand - whether you are being faithful to the Church's call to the new evangelization, and if not, what may be some of the false presuppositions or ideas lurking "below the surface" that are hindering you from responding to the call. The quiz will also hopefully help to make the rest of this article more interesting and relevant to you.

So without further ado, why don't you go ahead and take the quiz now...

[Quiz no longer available]

Well, how did you do?

Allow me to take a guess: My guess is that not too many Catholics are guilty of proselytism. I suspect that more of us are influenced and affected by the secular humanist or post-modernist/relativistic worldview.

Now let's look at a few definitions to help us better understand the results of the quiz. The Church has spoken profusely about evangelization and mission in the last forty years, and so we don't suffer from a lack resources on the topic. For the sake of simplicity, however, I will quote here from only one document - the most recent one published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, called rather unimaginatively Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (hereafter DNE). It is neither the best nor the most inspiring text, but it is relatively short, simple, straightforward and perfectly adequate for our purposes (I will list some of the other documents at the end of the newsletter).

Evangelization 

What, then, is evangelization?

Evangelization "sums up the Church's entire mission." It consists in "the proclamation and handing on of the Gospel, which is 'the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes' (Rom 1:16)."  It is to "proclaim Jesus Christ by one's words and actions."  Note that the document specifies that actions only are not enough; they must be accompanied by words to effectively transmit the Gospel of salvation to others. Every person has the right to hear the good news, and this implies that every Christian has a corresponding duty to evangelize. The gravity of this task is poignantly expressed in St. Paul's words: "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16). And the primary objective of evangelization? It is to "help all persons to meet Christ in faith" (DNE 2).

Where is Christ most especially encountered? Through incorporation into the community of believers, that is, in the Church. And so "since the beginning, the Gospel, in the power of the Spirit, is proclaimed to all people so that they might believe and become disciples of Christ and members of his Church."  The desire that people be saved through communion with Jesus in the Church is not something to be ashamed of. On the contrary, "the Christian spirit has always been animated by a passion to lead all humanity to Christ in the Church" (DNE 9).

Proselytism  

But isn't this desire to make people Catholics precisely what constitutes proselytism? No, it is not, and this is precisely wherein lies the modern-day confusion.

Proselytism, actually, is using "deception, selfish motives or arrogance" in trying to convert people, thus "failing in respect for the dignity and religious freedom of the partners in dialogue. For this reason, the Church severely prohibits forcing people to embrace the faith or leading or enticing them by improper techniques" (DNE 8). In other words, proselytism is the "promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person" (DNE 12; n. 49).

How then are we to avoid proselytism? In the task of Evangelization, everyone should "'refrain at all times from any kind of action which might seem to suggest coercion or dishonest or improper persuasion, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people" (DH 4). In short, "the witness to the truth does not seek to impose anything by force, neither by coercive action nor by tactics incompatible with the Gospel" (DNE 12).
Simple enough? Don't force people into the faith at gunpoint (or the equivalent - through fear, guilt trips, etc...). Inviting people into the faith, however, is quite another matter.

"I don't proselytize": Respect for others or cop-out from one's duty to evangelize? 

I have mentioned above that many people nowadays see proselytism as a big problem - a terribly disrespectful and intolerant thing to do. Put on the defensive by such criticism, one often hears Catholics - even some involved in missionary work - assuring us that they "don't do" that awful thing, proselytism. But what do they mean by that? The next time you hear someone make such a statement, ask them to clarify. Do they mean:

"I don't use any dishonest, deceptive or coercive measures to try to convert people" (the right answer!)

Or do they mean, rather:

"I have no interest at all (or lack the courage) to help people come to salvation by inviting them, in respect and love, to repent of their sins, accept Christ's forgiveness and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through faith and communion with the Church."  (If this is what they mean, they will probably tend to muddle the answer a bit).

Sadly, I fear that too many Christians who claim to not proselytize really mean that they don't evangelize. Perhaps they are simply intimidated be the daunting task, and this is understandable. But perhaps they have fallen prey to what Pope Benedict has calledthe "dictatorship of relativism," that symptom of the post-modern world which refuses to accept any truth as definitive apart from one's own subjective whims.

Relativism: The Great Enemy of Evangelization

Under the leadership of Benedict, the Church has tackled the bull of relativism by the horns. In our document, she expresses her concern for the "growing confusion" today which

"leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective. Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to... invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church" (DNE 3).

Quite opposite to this relativistic mentality, the Church invites us not to lose confidence in the truth and goodness that Jesus the Messiah has come to reveal to humanity. For this reason,"love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves" (DNE 10) - the truth which is Jesus Christ Himself. As then cardinal Ratzinger said a few years ago, "mission and dialogue should no longer be opposites but should mutually interpenetrate. Dialogue is not aimless conversation: it aims at conviction, at finding the truth; otherwise it is worthless" (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 112). Interreligious dialogue is thus not an end in itself but rather a "moment" in the Church's mission of evangelization (AG 11-12).

Let us, then, not lose heart, and may we work with renewed ardor to testify to the risen Lord with all our being, in our witness of holiness and in our words. Let's not forget that "even witness by itself is not enough because even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run, if it is not explained, justified – what Peter called ‘giving a reason for the hope that is in you’ (1 Pet 3:15) – and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus'" (DNE 11). 

Important Church Documents on Mission and Evangelization

Second Vatican Council - Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes (1965)
Pope Paul VI - Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975)
Pope John Paul II - Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio on the permanent validity of the Church's missionary mandate (1990)
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church (2000)
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization (2007)

See also Catholics for Israel's PowerPoint presentation:
Go into all the World! The Church's Missionary Mandate

A Response to "The Catholic Liturgy and Supersessionism" by Fr. Brian Harrison

Dear Fr. Harrison,

Thank you for bringing your article “The Catholic Liturgy and Supersessionism” to our attention, in response to our recent newsletter (November 2010) which commented on the recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.

Despite a busy schedule, I have decided that your well-written article is worthy of a serious response, because it explains in an articulate way a theological position that we encounter frequently. This position is one that is well-motivated and makes an important point, yet it is also one which I believe has some very serious weaknesses and implications that I’m afraid might do more damage than good to the mission of the Church.

First, a summary of your article as I understand it:

1. Although you do not state it in this way, it seems to me that the main objective of your article is really to refute dual-covenant theology, namely the idea that Jews could be saved by faithfully observing the Mosaic Law, while Christians are saved by the New Covenant instituted by Christ and perpetuated in the Church. We at Catholics for Israel fully agree with you in this regard.  Dual-covenant theology contradicts the faith of the Church. As you demonstrate quite well from the Catholic liturgical texts, the Church's faith clearly expresses that Jews are indeed invited to "enter into the New Covenant by means of baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah."
2. However, instead of building your argument upon a refutation of dual-covenant theology, you present it rather as an affirmation of supersessionism, which you define as the belief that "the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the ‘New Covenant’ of Jesus Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people." In other words, you appear to spend more time and energy denying the ongoing validity of the Mosaic covenant rather than affirming the message of salvation of the New Covenant.  This, as I will argue below, is not only an unfortunate emphasis, but also a disastrous one.
3. Throughout your article, you affirm supersessionism by emphasizing an exaggerated dichotomy between Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant, using statements like the following:
1. Reception of baptism and living according to the faith, worship and discipline of the New Covenant is allegedly "incompatible with the continuing observance of the Mosaic covenant."
   
2. The conversion of Jews who come to believe in Christ would allegedly involve "replacing observance of the Mosaic covenant by the reception of baptism and participation in the Christian New Covenant."
3. Baptism has "replaced" circumcision, and the first day of the week has "replaced" the seventh.
4. "The subsidiary and specific covenant of Sinai under Moses has now been replaced or superseded definitively by the specifically Christian covenant."

Before I try to respond to your position, I invite you to read a new "parable" that I just wrote.  It was inspired by your article and by other expressions of supersessionism that I continually encounter.  It is called The Father and the Two Sons: A New Parable on Replacement Theology

Now my response.  I would argue that your methodology is not only unnecessary but also most regrettable and damaging for the following reasons:

1. Your supersessionist position goes way beyond the position of Jesus and the New Testament authors, who are much more positive towards the Mosaic Covenant than you are.  True, the NT constantly reaffirms the superiority of the New over the Old; some passages seem to support the view that the time of the Mosaic Covenant has come to an end (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews); and Paul is adamant that observing the commandments of the Torah is not sufficient to be saved, but that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (esp. Gal and Rom).  However:
1. Jesus himself said that He did not come to abolish but rather to fulfill the Torah (Mat 5:17)
2. At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) the fact that the apostles decided that Gentile Christians are not obligated to be circumcised and keep the Torah presupposes that these customs were still practiced by the early Jewish-Christian community. Had this not been so, there would never had been the very debate about what to do with Gentiles who enter the Church.
3. To illustrate this point, Paul has Timothy circumcised in the very next chapter (Acts 16:30).
4. In Acts 21:20, the believers in Jerusalem are overjoyed that "many myriads of Jews" have believed, and they are "all zealous for the law" (the Torah).
5. At the same time, Paul joins himself to men who have made a vow  to prove wrong his accusers who falsely claim that he is teaching "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."  On the contrary, Paul is purified with these men so that "all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law" (Act 21:24).
6. I invite you to read more about the relationship of the first believers with the Law in our section on Torah and Gospel.
2. Second, many important Church authorities today have a much more positive view of the Torah and Mosaic covenant than you do. To give you only one example, see the recent interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke, now prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial office in the Church. I hope you will have an open ear to hear what he says about the legitimacy of observing Jewish customs in the light of Christ for Jewish believers.  
3. Third, your position essentially advocates a form of supersessionism that constitutes an almost insurmountable barrier to salvation for our Jewish friends. If supersessionism were true, it would mean that in order to accept the Gospel, the Jews would have to reject everything that they hold most dear. It would mean rejecting their own culture and customs which were not only given to them by God but also are the foundation of their very identity. This attitude, of course, flies in the face of everything the Church teaches about inculturation and evangelization: when missionaries evangelize new nations, the most foolish and counter-productive thing they could do is start uprooting the local people from their ancient customs and traditions as they try to make them Christians. Yet this is exactly what the supersessionist position does as it rejects any legitimacy for Jews to have the freedom to continue observing their customs.  This takes on even more disastrous proportions when one considers that many of these customs were divinely instituted! 
4. Incidentally, the Code of Canon Law (23-28) affirms that local customs prevailing in a culture more than 30 years obtain force of law; and that centenary or immemorial customs can even prevail against some canonical laws.  "Unless it makes express mention of them, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs" (CIC 28).  How much more for the immemorial customs of Israel, instituted by God Himself!
5. In short, if your position begins out of a good intention (affirming that Jesus Christ is indeed the way to salvation for our Jewish brethren), it really ends up having the opposite, catastrophic effect, of namely blocking their way to salvation. 

Perhaps the foundation for this damaging position stems from a confusion between the particular role of Israel and universal role of the Church.  I have noticed this in a statement you made in your email.  You wrote that it is a "fundamental part of our Catholic faith"

to hold that the secondary covenant with Moses established at Sinai has been superseded and replaced by the New Covenant. If that were not so, we would all still  be bound to Sabbath rather than Sunday observance, to observe all the dietary and ritual prescriptions of Leviticus, practise circumcision, etc.  (emphasis added)

The problem with this statement, Fr. Harrison, is that it is simply not true - or at least not for Gentile Catholics. We Gentiles were never bound by Sabbath observance, dietary and ritual prescriptions and circumcision. These were never given to Gentiles or to Christians, but only to Israel. To the first Jewish believers (as we see from the passages in Acts cited above) it was clear that the New Covenant did not abolish the covenant with Israel (including these observances), but rather universalized this covenant and extended its universal precepts to include all the nations. From the very beginning, Gentile Christians were not bound by the Torah because it was not given to them.  But just as the New Covenant never intended to judaize gentiles and make them Jews, the same New Covenant never intended to "gentilize" Jews and make the Gentiles.

True, there is "neither Jew nor Greek" - both are equal before God as regarding salvation. But just as the fact that there is "neither male nor female" never abolished the particular differences, complementarity and callings of man and woman, why should it not be the same with Jews and Gentiles - who each retain their particular calling in the One Church of Christ?

And so why should the invitation to baptism to Jews and their entrance into the new, universal covenant, imply the rejection, abrogation, or dismissal of circumcision, the sign of their particular covenant with God (which in this case is Abrahamic, by the way, and not Mosaic)? What makes them mutually exclusive?

Why should the celebration of the Lord's Day and new creation imply a rejection of the Sabbath day, divinely given to Israel, commemorating the first creation, whose importance is ceaselessly recalled in the OT as sign of Israel's faithfulness of God? Should the celebration of the new creation by the universal Church on the eigth day (to which Israel is of course invited) not reaffirm rather than dismiss the celebration of the first creation on the seventh day for Israel?

Do you not see why your view creates an almost insurmountable stumbling block to the salvation of the Jewish people?

Does Catholicism not usually embrace an attitude of both/and rather than either/or?  Why the false dichotomy between God's covenants - and why not adopt a more integrative approach?

In summary: God gave the Torah and its ordinances as the everlasting sign and guarantee of His covenant to Israel. It was never intended for their salvation, but its precepts constituted the grateful and loving response of Israel to their Creator who delivered them from Egyptian slavery and adopted them as His first-born son.  God gave the Torah to Israel, and not to Gentiles or to the Church. The universal New Covenant established by Jesus never abrogated the particular Mosaic covenant given to Israel, yet it was its perfect fulfillment.  Without the Gospel, the Torah remained and still remains incomplete, unfulfilled, for the Torah points to Jesus as the new prophet, Messiah and Savior of Israel.

But the Gospel was not only given to the Jews. It was intended for all men. It quickly became evident that the New Covenant did not require Gentiles to go first through the Old - to become circumcised and become Jews as a prerequisite to be members of the Church. At the same time, the universal covenant with the Church never required Jews to forsake the particular covenant of the Law of Moses - as long as it was clear that this particular covenant was not a final destination but rather a step - a very important one - on the way to the fullness of God's revelation and salvation revealed in Christ.

May we Gentile Christians learn to see the ancient covenant with Israel with greater humility, respect and appreciation, and may our own transformed attitude towards Israel and their heritage facilitate their encounter with Grace that Moses foretold long ago but has now been suspended for all too long.

Entering the Age of Social Media

The October events have convinced us here at Catholics for Israel that we need to be ready to respond in a quicker way to current issues when they arise.  And so in the last weeks we have significantly upgraded our internet presence by joining the age of social media. Here is a little summary of our new services, which we have customized with pictures of Israel so that you may at the same time catch a glimpse of some of the Holy Land's beautiful sites and sceneries:

• The Catholics for Israel website remains the center and hub of Catholics for Israel's presence on the internet.  This is where you will find general information about us, our mission statements, our unique online course for evangelization and catechesis (with PowerPoint presentations and handouts), Church documents, and articles and essays on biblical and theological topics pertaining to Israel, the Messiah, and the Church.  These resources are available in up to five languages (English, French, Italian, German, Hebrew).  Brief, moderated comments on the articles are also welcome.
• The other CFI "veteran" on the web is our discussion forum. This is your place - where you can join in or initiate discussions and debates on the topic of your choosing (hopefully in some way related to our mission).  Animated and even heated discussions are welcome - of course all carried out in a dignified and respectful manner.
• The first new kid on the block is our blog (which you are reading now), set over the background of the beautiful hills of Judea.  Why do we need a blog in addition to the website, and what will be the difference between them?  The website will now be the home of our more permanent and "timeless" resources and materials (theology, Church documents, biblical exegesis, catechesis, testimonies, history, liturgy and prayer, etc.). The blog, on the other hand, will treat of more current events, such as commentaries and opinions on items in the news, and more personal entries such as journaling and the sharing of daily life and experiences in Israel, etc...  From now on, our newsletters (such as the one you are reading now) will also be posted on the blog.
• Catholics for Israel has also created its own YouTube channel. Set over the calm waters of the Sea of Galilee at sunset, watch videos from our collection of favorites on topics ranging from the Bible, Judaism, Israel's history, land, people, and culture, the Middle East conflict, the Messiah, the Catholic faith, the pope and the Jewish people, testimonies, and more.  Most of these videos are now directly available from our homepage, easily accessible under a row of tabs.
• Of course, no social networking would be complete without Facebook and Twitter, and Catholics for Israel is now present on both of these platforms. They will serve as forums for posting current events and news as well as publishing our responses.  Facebook posts will be open for reader comments and discussion, while our tweets, set  over Mount Scopus, the Mount of Olives and Temple Mount in the Holy City of Jerusalem, will also be reposted on our website and blog. 

Additionally, we also recommend signing up to Holy Land News, the video news broadcast of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, produced from Jerusalem and posted weekly on YouTube.

Please support us in our work of furthering the reconciliation of Israel and the Church!  There are a number of ways by which you can do this.  First, follow us on  Facebook and/or Twitter to stay abreast of current events, and visit our website and blog regularly. Second, please consider making a donation.  A few $50 donations or purchases of our online course can go a long way in supporting our translation work and in helping us to spread the Church's message of reconciliation to Israel. Third - and perhaps most importantly - please pray for us!

Between Prophetic Vision and Politically-Induced Myopia

October was a significant month for the relationship between Israel and the Church.  It began with a relatively low-key event in a hotel in Missouri, and ended with a high-profile gathering of key leaders in the heart of the Church.  Both events managed to generate controversy - the first (in my humble opinion) because of its remarkable prophetic vision, and the second because of the astounding short-sightedness of one of its participants.

Although the two controversies seemed related to two very different issues, I believe that both, in fact, are closely related, and I will tell you why below.

The first event was the conference hosted by the Association of Hebrew Catholics in St Louis from October 1-3.  The second event was the Synod of Bishops of the Middle East that took place in Rome from October 10-24. I had the privilege of being present at the AHC conference, but I was not in Rome for the synod.

AHC Conference

The AHC conference hosted a variety of speakers from widely different backgrounds.  All found their way to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church, albeit with a way there unique to each one.  Some were Jews, some were Gentiles.  Some came from agnostic, atheistic or communist backgrounds, others had been raised as religious Jews, while others had previously served the Lord in the Messianic Jewish movement or in other Christian denominations.

Some gave their testimony and shared how they found their way to the Lord and to His Church (Mark & Sue Neugebauer, Mark Drogin, Ken Wilsker). Others spoke on biblical or theological topics such as the mission of the Jewish people in salvation history and their role in the Church (Roy Schoeman), the salvation of Israel and the Second Coming (Larry Feingold), the biblical reasons why the Church today is based in Rome and not in Jerusalem (Taylor Marshall), or the connection between the Jewish people and Land of Israel today (myself).

Despite the variety of backgrounds, there was a remarkable convergence and unity in the common longing to work towards the reconciliation between Israel and the Church and to overcome centuries of division and separation that were never meant to be (though mysteriously permitted by divine Providence for the sake of a greater purpose).

Perhaps the most remarkable moment of the conference was the showing of the video interview with Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, former archbishop of St Louis, now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, and recently appointed cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI.  In this fascinating interview, conducted by David Moss, president of the AHC, Archbishop Burke spoke about the continued election of the Jewish people who are baptized and enter the Catholic Church, about the legitimacy for Catholic Jews to continue celebrating their Jewish traditions in the light of Christ within the Church, about the relationship between Old and New Covenants, and about the life of Hebrew Catholics in the Church today.

Most extraordinary was Archbishop Burke's positive disposition towards baptized Jews who wish to continue to observe Jewish traditions and customs in the Church in the light of Christ.  What better sign could there be than this to affirm the fact that the Catholic faith does not represent a break with the Jewish faith but rather is its fulfillment? Archbishop Burke demonstrated remarkable prophetic vision in encouraging the preservation (or restoration) of Jewish identity in the Church as one way to make Jews feel at home while being in full communion with the Body of Messiah.  You may view the complete interview here.

Rather predictably, the conference generated some amount of controversy, apparently ruffling the feathers of the local Jewish community who suspected that the conference had a secret agenda to proselytize Jews. Some of the local media got involved, fanning the flames of the controversy, and all of it was brought to the attention of the Archbishop of St. Louis, Robert J. Carlson.  Although the conference, in fact, had no such hidden agenda and none of the speakers spoke in favor of proselytism, I noticed that there seems to be a fair amount of confusion going around as to the distinction between proselytism (which the Church rejects), and evangelization (which is not only encouraged by the Church but is the reason why She exists). This, however, is a big topic that deserves a newsletter of its own, and so I will save it for next time.

Synod of Bishops

A week after the end of the AHC conference, the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of the Bishops began in Rome. Intended to deal with pastoral rather than political questions, it touched upon the many problems, challenges, and hopes of the dwindling Christian population of the Middle East. The synodal work proceeded relatively peacefully until the very end, when the synod's final statement condemned the Israeli "occupation" of the Palestinian territories, and Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyris Bustros added that

"we Christians cannot speak of the 'promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people."

This offensive and heretical denial of the core of Jewish identity of course set off a storm of protests from not only Jewish individuals and organizations around the world, including the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israeli Embassador to the Holy See, but also from many Christians.  Personally, I was quadruply - no, make that quintuply - frustrated by the whole affair.

First, I was irritated by the archbishop's statement, an unsophisticated rehashing of the old heresy of supersessionism (replacement theology), bluntly contradicting the official teachings of the Catholic Church which state that "God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues" (Vatican II Declaration Nostra Aetate, echoing Rom 11:28-29).

Second, I was annoyed at the poor reporting in some of the media who confused the bishop's opinion with the official Catholic position. One article, for example, carried the dismaying headline: "Catholic Church: Christ Nullified God's Promises to the Jews".  (After a day of heated email exchanges with the journalist he finally relented and changed 'Catholic Church' to 'Catholic Cleric').

Third, I was vexed by the online comments of many readers who uncritically swallowed the misleading headlines and used them as a pretext to go on rambling about the "spiritual darkness" of Catholicism that (allegedly) made void God's covenant faithfulness to His people.

Fourth, I was aggravated by the tepid and indecisive response that came from the Vatican, limited to a bland clarification from Holy See Press Office director Federico Lombardi who denied that the synod had an anti-Israel bias, and urged the public to stick to the officially promulgated text rather than focus on personal declarations that are not representative of the synod at large.

Fifth, I was exasperated by the attitude of local clergymen here in Jerusalem who lightly brushed aside the matter, showing little or no concern that an archbishop could publicly proclaim with impunity such a distasteful heresy which reflected, as the Jewish representative at the synod Rabbi David Rosen stated, "either shocking ignorance or insubordination in relation to the Catholic Church's teaching on Jews and Judaism."

One cannot help but ask: why is it so hard for the Vatican to clarify a doctrine that is firmly established officially, yet not sufficiently well-known or assimilated by the faithful and common people, and therefore still prone to attacks of this sort?

Consider the result of the controversy: the archbishop got away with murder, gravely undermining the essence of God's covenant faithfulness to His chosen people; advocates of replacement theology wrongly think they are right; anti-Israel political activists are delighted that the Church is "on their side"; Jews are angry; the average Catholic faithful are confused; anti-Catholic fundamentalists are triumphant at yet another (apparent) manifestation of Catholic apostasy; and the Muslims who oppress Christians in the Middle East are satisfied that Catholic clerics will go to any length to avoid saying anything positive towards Israel in order not to offend them. 

I may be exaggerating a bit - but only slightly so. Concerning the last point: note that none of the Middle Eastern Muslim countries where Christians are severely persecuted (or even massacred) is mentioned by name in the synod's final report.  Only one country is explicitly singled out for criticism and - quite absurdly - it happens to be the one where Christians can practice their religion freely and where the Christian population is actually growing. You guessed it - it's the usual suspect: Israel.

What, then, might be the connection between controversy nr. 1 (the AHC conference) and controversy nr. 2 (the synod), you ask? Well, both have the effect of blocking the way to salvation of the Jewish people and the reconciliation of Israel and the Church. The first - by neutralizing the Church's work of evangelization of the Jewish people.  The second - by denying or rejecting their divine election and calling, resulting in their further disillusion with and alienation from the Church.  Both are driven by political correctness: in the first case, by not wanting to offend our Jewish friends by proclaiming the Messiahship of Jesus; in the second, by not wanting to offend the Muslims by showing any affirmation or support of the Jewish people's biblical connection with the land of their forefathers.  In both cases, what begins - perhaps - out of a good intentions ends up causing more damage than good.

Perhaps it is time for new approaches that will be a little less politically correct and a little more bold in affirming both the Gospel message of salvation and the permanent divine election of Israel?