From the March of the Living to the March for Life

On the evening of Yom Ha’Atsmaut, Israel Independence Day, I went with a friend to the closing event of the 2012 "March of the Living" in the Latrun amphitheatre, located between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

The March of the Living is an educational program that brings Jewish teens from all over the world to Poland on Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. They march from Auschwitz to Birkenau, the largest concentration camp complex built during World War II, and then to Israel to observe Yom HaZikaron (Israel Memorial Day) and Yom Ha'Atzmaut.

According to its website, the March of the Living divides its goals into “universal” and “Jewish” goals.

The universal goals include remembering those who perished in the Holocaust, paying tribute to survivors, recognizing and learning from the actions of the “righteous among the nations,” honoring the veterans of World War II, fighting anti-Semitism and racial discrimination, and inspiring the participants to build a world free of oppression and intolerance, founded upon “freedom, democracy and justice, for all members of the human family.”

The “Jewish goals” of the march include bolstering the Jewish identity of the next generation through learning about the Jewish heritage of pre-war Eastern Europe, understanding the importance of the existence of Israel as spiritual center and homeland of the Jewish people, fostering Jewish unity, and promoting tikkun olam ("repairing the world") and the Jewish people’s responsibility to be a light onto the nations.

All very worthy and noble goals.  Even though I did not participate in the March, at the spectacular closing evening in Latrun I could indeed feel that the participants were bound by what had been a very deep and meaningful time spent together. Beyond the extraordinary performance which combined engaging songs, professional dances and choreographies, impressive pyrotechnics and fireworks, and moving speeches, movie clips and testimonies, there was a graspable sense of unity and purpose among the thousands of young Jewish people who had no doubt experienced an unforgettable two weeks.

One could sense that the shaping of the Jewish nation out of the calamity of the Shoah, through the rebirth and growth of the State of Israel thanks to the sacrifice of so many, was a call to responsibility for the future generations, encapsulated by the evening’s slogan of “embrace the past, grasp the future.”

As I sat there enjoying the show, many thoughts went through my mind.

First, I was struck by the strength that comes from this incredible sense of purpose, dedication and self-sacrifice born out of the Jewish people’s struggle for survival throughout the ages. It’s no wonder, I thought, that Israel has won all the wars launched against them by their Arab enemies - who not only totally lack any sense of common purpose but are often bitter rivals among themselves.

At the same time, it was clear to me how a greater Hand of protection had been upon the people of Israel in protecting them from the foes that have risen and continue to rise against them.

For this reason, I thought it unfortunate and rather sad that the One who is primarily responsible for the survival of the Jewish People, the Shomer Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps, was more or less left on the sidelines of the evening. With hardly any verbal acknowledgement made to the enduring providence and protection of the God of Israel over His people, I felt that the event left at times a bit of an awkward feeling of self-congratulation – as if the survival and thriving of the Jewish people through history were due to their own tenacity and determination alone.

While aware that the March of the Living is not a “religious event” per se, I could not help but wish that some thanksgiving and praise would have been given to God for His faithfulness to His people – especially now that the dark clouds of new and greater threats are gathering on the horizon of the Jewish nation.

Fortunately, this uneasy feeling was partially relieved with the uplifting performances of some traditional religious Jewish songs, such as Adon Olam (Lord of the Ages), Mashiach (Messiah) and Ein lanu al mi lehisha’en (“We have no one else to lean on but our Father who is in heaven”) – which were my personal highlights of the evening.

I also wished that a dimension of reconciliation would have been better integrated into the event, such as the work done by the much smaller Yad b’Yad initiative, which sends groups of Israelis and Germans together to Germany, Auschwitz, and Israel with the goal of fostering reconciliation, healing and friendships between them. As much as I appreciate the mission of the March of the Living, I felt that its implicit message of “we survived even though everyone is against us, and we want to make sure it doesn’t happen again” fell quite a bit short of Yad b’Yad’s vision of bringing together Germans and Israelis, calling the former to repentance and the latter to forgiveness, healing their respective wounds of guilt and victimization, and leading them to true friendship and unity between Jew and Gentile.

Of course, since such a vision of the “one new man” is grounded in the work of reconciliation accomplished by Yeshua the Messiah of Israel and Prince of Peace, it is probably unrealistic to expect it from a Jewish organization that does not accept Him as Messiah and Savior. Still, one may hope for this vision of true reconciliation to come to pass in the future, since it is an integral part of Israel's calling and vocation as announced by the ancient prophets.

Finally, while admiring the March of the Living event, I could not help but think of its quasi-namesake the “March for Life” - the annual pro-life rally that draws some 250,000 participants in Washington D.C. every year with the goal of overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in America.

The March of the Living and March for Life.  I thought of the “Great Disconnect” between Israel and the Church: How many Jews at the event in Latrun even know what is the March for Life?  How many of my Catholic friends in the U.S. even know what is the March of the Living?

The March of the Living and March for Life.  Two holocausts.  6 millions Jews in Europe from 1941 to 1945 (average 1.5 million a year).  Over 54 million unborn - in America alone - from 1973 to 2011 (average 1.4 million a year).

The March of the Living and March for Life.  Two celebrations of life. One group marching to celebrate the life that came out of the ashes of the Shoah seventy years ago, having survived a mad criminal regime and a nation that had killed its own conscience. One group marching to protect the life of future generations, threatened today by a culture of selfishness that has also killed its conscience in tolerating the legal wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents for the sake of “choice.”

The March of the Living and March for Life...  and a chilling question: of all those Jews who take pride in celebrating the victory of life over death at the March of the Living, how many simultaneously choose the side of death when it comes to today's silent genocide of the unborn?  After all, it is known that a majority of Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and secular Jews are aligned with the so-called "reproductive choice" camp, with not a few Jews being even leaders in the pro-abortion movement.  Survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants, and at the same time accomplices in the greatest modern-day Holocaust.  A chilling thought indeed.

May the people at the March for Life in Washington D.C. be inspired by the heritage, memory and mission of the March of the Living. But more importantly, may those participants in the March of the Living also fight for life in the battle that is taking place before their very eyes today. God forbid that those whose ancestors survived a Holocaust become accomplices of another. May they "embrace the past and grasp the future" by joining the cause of the March for Life.

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 !

Jewish-Arab Coexistence in the Midst of Conflict

Sunday morning. In Israel, it's the first day of a new week. Just a few minutes ago, I arrived on the campus of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem on Mount Scopus, just a short walk down from the Mount of Olives. Before beginning a day of studying and writing, I went to the cafeteria to buy an orange juice. I greeted with a smile the Arab girl working at the counter, ordered, paid, and then said "shukran" (thank you) in Arabic. I then sat down and read the headlines in the Hebrew daily newspaper "Israel HaYom" (Israel Today). It was a quiet Shabbat in Jerusalem, but not in southern Israel, where thousands of residents were forced to spend the weekend in bomb shelters. Over the weekend, Islamic factions in the Gaza strip fired some 120 rockets and mortars onto the neighboring Israeli communities. The newly deployed "Iron Dome" missile system intercepted about eight Grad rockets that were heading for the civilian populations in the coastal city of Ashkelon and the biblical city of Beer Sheva in the Negev Desert. Last week, an anti-tank missile was fired at a school bus, critically injuring a teen and prompting a harsh Israeli response which led to the killing of several Hamas commanders.

With all the grim headlines and the seemingly endless conflict, I could not help thinking about how different my daily life is. In the last post, I posted a video showing examples of tolerance and kindness in Israeli society towards Arabs. I personally see similar situations every day around me. Earlier this morning I had breakfast at the Christian guest house in the old city where I usually eat, greeting Charlie, the Arab Christian receptionist, with a friendly "sabbah el'kheir" (good morning) in Arabic. In a couple of hours I will go to my Arabic class, continuing my study of literary Arabic along with some 20 enthusiastic Israeli Jewish students. Perhaps after class a group of us will head to the library together to do our homework, as it has become our custom. Last week, as we were all struggling with Arabic verbs, Shoshanat, one of the Israeli students, calls out a passing young female Muslim student friend, gives her a hug, and after a bit of friendly chitchat proceeds to grill her on the correct way to conjugate the verb "to prepare" in Arabic. Another time, it was Elisha, a young kippa-wearing religious Israeli Jew who lives in one of the Jewish settlements in Samaria, who chats, smiles and jokes around in Arabic with the veiled Muslim girl for several minutes as she kindly helps him do his homework.

Despite the undeniable fears and tensions in the country, such beautiful examples of friendly coexistence between Jews and Arabs abound, not only here at Hebrew University, but all over pluralistic and multi-ethnic Israel.

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.