Palestinian Christians: Cutting the Branch on which They are Sitting?

Recently I stumbled upon a Facebook page called "Palestinian Christians." It drew my attention because it posted a shocking eulogy glorifying arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. Arafat is considered by many to be the father of modern terrorism. The legacy he left behind at the time of his death in 2004 was decades of brutal terror attacks against innocent civilians. As CAMERA reports:

groups under Arafat's direct or indirect command – including Fatah, Black September, Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – were responsible for hundreds of bombings, hijackings, assassinations and other attacks, including the 1972 murder of 11 of Israel's Olympic athletes in Munich, the 1973 murder of the American ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel, and the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruiseship (resulting in the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer).

For a complete overview of Arafat's bloody legacy, see CAMERA's compilation of Yasir Arafat's Timeline of Terror.

Nevertheless, this horrific murderous legacy did not prevent our group of Palestinian Christians from eulogizing Arafat as the true hero of the Palestinian people in the following words:

Palestinian Christians: Yasser Arafat 1929 – 2004, the Freedom Fighter, the Man, the Father, the Hero, the Legend, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, RIP. We Miss You! We Love You! We Need You! God Bless Your Soul!

The following conversation ensued in the comment thread of that initial post, which we thought was interesting enough to reprint here. At this time you may find the original thread here, though there is no guarantee that the group will not delete part or all of it at some point.

Catholics for Israel: Why do you honor the father of modern terrorism, a man with so much blood on his hands? It is hard to understand how Christians can praise a man with such a tainted legacy. You bring shame on the Palestinian Christians. If you want God to bless and keep the Palestinians Christians, you should dissociate yourself from such terrorists, not praise them. It's really sad to see how Palestinian Christians, despite all their hardships, have lost their moral compass and integrity and stooped down to honoring one of the greatest instigators of violence of the past generation.

Jacko: why do you honor the state of terrorism that was founded over the blood of my Christian family and people? a state that ethnic cleansed more than 750,000 innocent civilians thousands of them were Christians and Catholics... a state that bombed and destroyed dozens of Christian and catholic churches... a state that stole and confiscated our land and is right now stealing and confiscating more land from Christian and Catholic families in Beit Jala including a Catholic monastery and winery... a state that has murdered, inured and jailed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including thousands of Christians and Catholics including many clergy and nuns... a state that is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gods name?

How dare you to call urself Catholics or even Christians when you go against the teaching of the Catholic church that recognize Zionism is an anti-Christ heresy.

You have lost all you immorality [sic] and you are no better than any other terrorists and terrorists sympathizers who murder others in God's name and claiming to be doing God a favor and helping Him reaching Hid plans, as if He is unable to do it Himself!

You need also to take some classes in humanity and history to learn to distinguish between terrorism and the right to defend and protect your family and your nation. Yasser Arafat is a Freedom Fighter and he, just like all of us, has every single right to resist the zionist satanic occupation of Jesus Land!

it's our duty as Palestinians to defend and protect ourselves and our families, and our duty as Christians to resist the evil

Palestinian Christians: Catholics for Israel: you are a shame on Christians in general and especially on Catholics. You are not real Catholics or even Christians anyways.

What's your position on stealing and confiscation Christian properties and Catholic monastery in Beit Jala to build a new Zionist colony for the newly non-Semite Zionists?

Catholics for Israel: wow, so many cliches, lies, distortions and exaggerations. Jacko, would you be so kind to list precisely the names and locations of the "dozens of Christian and catholic churches" that Israel has bombed? The tragedy of the Palestinian Christians is undeniable, and Israel is certainly not always without fault, but to ignore or whitewash the constant Arab aggression and denial of Israel's right to exist, to support the falsification of history, conveniently rewriting it by erasing the Jewish connection to the land and inventing a mythical "Palestinian narrative", to glorify Arafat the father of modern terrorism, responsible for the death of not only thousands of Jews but also tens of thousands of Arabs - those things are certainly not "Christian".

We are certainly against Israel's confiscation of Christian properties in Beit Jalla if this is truly happening (unfortunately, very often Palestinian claims tend to be false or largely exaggerated). For example, the claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Zionism is an "anti-christ heresy" is of course completely false. See the statement of Cardinal Schoenborn for example.

And by the way, we are "for Israel" but we are also "for" the Palestinians. We pray for God's blessing and peace upon you and wish you well. We know you have suffered much from the conflict. But we wish to encourage you to stop committing spiritual suicide with your anti-Israel attitude. Israel is the root and foundation of our faith. Do you not read the Bible? Israel appears nearly 3,000 times in the Holy Scriptures, and "Palestine" does not appear even once.

Look at what Muslims are doing to Christians all over the Middle East. Christians are being massacred all over the Muslim countries, yet you persist in blaming the only country in the Middle East where Christians have full freedom of religion and where the number of Christians are growing! (we know, we are Christians living in Israel).

Dear Palestinian Christians, stop bringing this curse upon yourselves by praising terrorists and blaming Israel. Remember that the Word of God itself says "Blessed is he who blesses you [Israel], and cursed is he who curses you" (Gen 12:3, Num 24:9). Remember that St. Paul said "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28-29). And the most important of these irrevocable gifts to the Jewish people is the land of Israel.

So let's pray together that peace, justice and blessing may come to you, the Palestinian Christians. But this blessing must begin with your own conversion from your anti-Israel hatred that is bringing a curse upon you according to the word of God. We know that Israel has made lots of mistakes and we pray also for their own conversion, and that God would give you the strength not only to forgive the Israelis but also to love them like Jesus loves His own people.

May the blessing of the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, come upon you dear Palestinian Christians.

Jacko: wow... so many lies, fabrications, hatred and ignorance in ur response which makes us real doubt ur loyalty and if u really a Catholic or even a Christian as most likely u r a mossad paid agent to spew Zionist propaganda to misinform and mislead naive catholic and to support the racist colonial secular Zionist terrorist anti-Christ state that was founded by terror and over the blood of my Christian family and my people.

as for a list of the churches bombed; it's a well known fact and proven by many international wel-known and credible historians including Jewish & Israeli ones that Israel has ethnic cleansed more than 2/3 of the Palestinian people in 1948, around 750,000 innocent civilians, dozens of thousands of them were Christians. Moreover, Israel has wiped off the map more 550 Palestinian villages and towns, and also many of them were purely Christians like Mujaidel, Ma'loula, Hasake, Iqreth, Ber'im... not to forget the burning and bombing of Christian churches such as the Annunciation Basilica in Nazareth, 2 Baptist Churches in Jerusalem, a Christian Alliance church in Jerusalem, the Nativity church, Saint Anthony Catholic church in Jaffa/Yaffa that was fire bombed and shooted at by a Zionist terrorist militant, Saint Barbara church, a 4th century church in the Christian village of Aboud near Ramallah... not to forget that in the last Zionist war and terror against Gaza in 2008-2009, Israel has murdered 3 innocent Christians, bombed and destroyed many Christian homes and businesses... and also all Gaza's Christians churches and schools were bombed by the Zionists

You also need to spend more time to read the Bible to know that the source of our faith was NEVER Israel... and also to learn the difference between Biblical/Spiritual Israel aka Jacob and Zionist Colonial anti-Christ Israel....Biblical Zion is NOT the same as political terrorist Zionism.

Here are just a small example of the Zionist terror against the Christians and Churches in Palestine:

Christians Discriminated Against by Israel

Orthodox Jewish youths burn New Testaments in Or Yehuda

Israeli settlers burn church in Jerusalem

Gaza Baptist Church Destroyed by Israeli Strikes

Jewish extremists burn Narkis Street Baptist Church in Jerusalem

Church Building in Israel Set Ablaze

Who is the Terrorist: Hamas or Israel?

Greek Orthodox Church in Lebanon bombed by Israel

Enjoy what ur Zionist masters are doing to ur "fellow" Christians & Catholics:

Jerusalem Christians Denied Access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Catholics for Israel: It's sad to see that you prefer to continue in your anti-Israel hatred that is bringing a curse upon yourself and upon your people rather than choosing a better path. If you hate Israel so much and you think you will be much better off with the Muslims, why don't you go live in Gaza under Hamas? You know the Muslim saying "First Sabbath, then Sunday" - meaning that first the Muslims will kill the Jews, and then the Christians. What will you do then, still blame Israel?

You conveniently omit the fact that the ARABS launched the 1948 war and committed their own share of massacres (every day I go by the memorial stone of the Hadassah convoy massacre when 79 civilians, mostly doctors and nurses, were ruthlessly gunned down by Arabs). You also conveniently "forget" the 8,000 rockets launched by Hamas against Israeli cities that caused the tragic 2009 Gaza war.

I don't know why you see "hatred" in our response. We love the Palestinian people and wish them well. Everyone knows that there are Jewish extremists and some serious problems in Israeli society - and it's fine to condemn them. But to condemn the various *incidents* is not the same as just hating Israel like you do.

As for your rejection of Israel as the foundation of our faith, this is like cutting off the branch of the tree upon which you are sitting. Remember what St. Paul writes in the NEW Testament: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ." (Rom 9:4)

 What is "Christian" about your FB page? It's just a forum of anti-Israel hatred and venom. There is very little about it that is edifying or positive. Don't you see that you are cursing yourself and your own people by attacking and hating the Jews who are "beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:28-29)

As for the Israelis "denying access to the Holy Sepulchre" - this is a complete joke. I was there. The reason why they set up roadblocks is because there are so many people trying to get to the church that they would get crushed to death if there were no restrictions. If this farcical accusation is an indication of the other articles you cite, I would have a hard time believing any of them!

 You are very good at hurling insults, but not very good at replying to the facts. What exactly are the "lies" and "fabrications" or expressions of "hatred" in our previous posts? And how do you explain that the cardinal responsible for the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees that the return of the Jews to their land is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

Once again, we plead with you to stop bringing a curse upon your own people and upon the Palestinian Christians. Repent from your anti-Israel hatred! Choose LIFE and BLESSING for the Palestinians by blessing and loving the people of Israel. As hard as this might be, this will do infinitely more for your people than all the anger and hatred that you are expressing now. You know the Lord is calling you to forgive and to love your enemy. DO IT! Renounce your way of hatred and choose life and blessing for the sake of your people and your children!

Jacko: Bla Bla Bla... typical Zionist propaganda that no one believes in anymore, even Israelis and Jews do not buy it as we all know better... you asked for a list of Zionist crimes against Christianity, and I see that u did not even comment on them or even condemned such satanic terrorist acts or showed sympathy to the victims of the Zionist crimes and terror... which proves that u r not a catholic or even a Christian; but as I said it before you are a mossad paid agent that is using naive Catholics to misinform and mislead them and have them to support the anti-Catholic and anti-Christ state that was founded by atheists, Christ-deniers and terrorists over the poor of the poor indigenous Palestinians and Christians of Jesus Land

it's sad that u r going against the teachings of the Catholic church! u r a hypocrite and a Zionist who follows the heretical teachings of the anti-Catholic Dispensational Theology that was founded last century by anti-catholic heretics!

James: Zionism is anti-Judaism and anti-Christ! it's heresy

Mansur: The jews of Jesus's time are not the same Jews of today. The israel of 2000 years ago is not today's israel. The name was stolen and used to get people to support the modern state. "God's Chosen people" who are they? What is Israel of the bible? these are two very important questions to answer. God's chosen people are people who believe in God and not a religious group or an ethnic group. Israel of the bible refers to the people of God in the entire world and not a state that was build on the blood of palestinians. The modern state of Israel does not follow the word of God. Many of its citizens are secular jews and do not believe in the God of Abraham. We the palestinian christians are the first people to receive the message of the lord and we have been faithful to that message through ages. Why do we not support the modern state of Israel "if the bible says so"? because the modern state of israel is not the israel of God. The Israel of the lord is his church and people all over the world and not a state that was build against the very basic fundamentals of both Judaism and Christianity.

Christian Zionism differs from church doctrine, due in part to its being developed by anti-state church clergymen and theologians in England. Today its views find significant support among the charismatic, Pentecostal and independent Bible churches in Protestant fundamentalism. Christian Zionists often view mainline Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic denominations with hostility and have at times considered the World Council of Churches and related bodies to be tools of the Antichrist. In the Holy Land, Christian Zionists have been hostile toward Palestinian Christians and generally detest Muslims as evil forces worshipping another God. Recent comments by Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham (the son of evangelist Billy Graham) have added to the suspicion with which many Muslims view the Christian West.

Catholics for Israel: Jacko prefers cheap insults to rational discourse, so there is not really anything more worth saying to him, except that of course we condemn the incidents he mentions - at least those that are true. Some are isolated incidents that were condemned by the Israeli government and the majority of Israelis (burning of NT in Or Yehuda, shooting in church in Jaffa, attack on Baptist church); others are tragic accidents of wars provoked by Hezbullah and Hamas (Lebanon, Gaza), and others are complete bogus (Israel blocking access to Holy Sepulchre). We can only hope for Jacko to repent from his hatred so that he may stop being a curse to his own people, and choose instead forgiveness and reconciliation so that he may instead be a blessing to the Palestinians.

Mansur's position is the classic idea of 'replacement theology', the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people.  The Catholic Church now clearly rejects this false teaching, as clearly expressed in Nostra Aetate 4. Affirming God's eternal election of the Jewish people is not a idea that is limited to dispensationalism, it is also the clear teaching of Scripture and of the Catholic Church.

Many Palestinian Christians, including many of the clergy, still embrace the heresy of replacement theology because they think that supporting Israel means to support injustice against them, or to approve of every single action carried out by Israel, or to be generally against the Palestinians.  These claims are completely false - at least in our case: as "Catholics for Israel", we love the Palestinian people and wish the best for them. We also think that some actions of the Israeli government, army or individuals are wrong, and have no problem in criticizing them in some cases.

Unfortunately, many Palestinian Christians are completely fixated on their own agenda of Palestinian liberation theology. They hijack the Gospel to achieve political aims, while at the same time constantly spewing anti-Israel venom and hatred (like Jacko). In other words, they are Palestinian first, and Christians second.

Mansur's position that "Israel" is in fact the Church cannot be substantiated in any way by Scripture.  The NT uses the word "Israel" over 70 times, and in all cases (except one or two which are ambiguous), "Israel" always means the Jewish people - never the Church.  God's election of Israel never depended on whether Israel was faithful to God or not: the prophets constantly condemn Israel for their sins, but NEVER do they say that God has definitely rejected them.  The Church is grafted into the root of Israel, as St. Paul writes (Romans 11), and he warns us not to become arrogant against our root, Israel, because if we do, God can cut us off from grace.

This is in continuity with Gen 12:3 and Num 24:9: He who blesses Israel will be blessed; he who curses Israel will be cursed. Jacko is a sad example of the latter: full of hatred and anger against Israel and hardly reflecting the love of Christ at all, unable to engage in rational discourse and only capable of hurling insults.

Mansur continues with some bizarre claims that are unfortunately quite common among Palestinian Christians. Although false and quite unprovable, they find it necessary to constantly repeat them in order to substantiate their delegitimization of Israel:

"The jews of Jesus's time are not the same Jews of today" - how should this be proven? Apart from a trickle of conversions throughout history, it is clear to any serious historian that the Jewish people have been extremely strict in keeping and protecting their identity throughout the ages. And once again, the fact that they have tragically rejected Jesus does not cancel out God's election or his purposes for His people. The Jewish people remain the Jewish people.

Mansur also claims that "we the palestinian christians are the first people to receive the message of the lord" - with all respect, this claim is nonsense. The first Christians were all Jews - JEWS!  Just read the Acts of the Apostles. There was no such thing as "Palestinian Arab Christians" in the first century in the land of Israel - but rather Jews, Samaritans, Romans... and then later Byzantine (Greek) Christians. Arabs came much later.

Enough said. Again, we wish the best to our Palestinian Christian brothers, but find it very sad that they continue to sabotage their own cause by disrespecting and undermining God's eternal covenant with Israel, the root upon which their own faith is grounded.

Intra-Catholic Tension on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

This is the record of an impromptu discussion between Catholics for Israel and Fr. Jamal Khader, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Bethlehem University and one of the authors of the Kairos Palestine document. It took place recently on this website, in the discussion forum under the article on Replacement Theology. We repost it here because it illustrates well the wide gap that exists between positions held by Catholics, and how, sadly, politics in the Holy Land too often overshadow theological discussion. Comments are welcome to continue the debate!

21/11/2010 Fr. Jamal Khader

What is Displacement Theology? It is a "theology" that uses the Word of God to justify the occupation of Palestinian land and the displacement of Palestinians from their land in the name of the prophecies and the promises of the Old Testament. In the name of fighting Replacement theology and Anti-Semitism, Christians try to amend for what they did to Jews (the horrible massacres of the Holocaust) at the expense of the Palestinians, and in their land. The Word of God is Good News to all, including to me, a Palestinian Christian. Remember that!

21/11/2010 Ariel

dear Fr. Khader,

thank you for your comment. You are right that the Word of God is good news for all, including Palestinian Christians like yourself. As we state often, Catholics for Israel is against every form of injustice. We know that our Palestinian brothers and sisters have suffered much, and we pray that you may live in peace, justice and dignity. Although the Scriptures are clear that there is an inseparable bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, we agree that this should never be used to justify the unjust displacement of Palestinians or other injustices.

However, many Palestinian Christians tragically sabotage their own cause by embracing replacement theology and rejecting their biblical connection to the Jewish people and God's promises to them. One example is the disastrous 'Kairos Palestine' document which has brought shame on the Christians of the Holy Land by its extremist political views, whitewashing of terrorism and minimizing the islamic threat to Christians, and unjustly blaming Israel for all problems in the Holy Land. We pray that Palestinian Christians will stop cutting themselves off from their own roots. By acknowledging God's promises to His people Israel you will not harm your cause; on the contrary, it will be the source of abundant blessings, for God is faithful to His Word, and He blesses those who bless His people Israel!

22/11/2010 Fr. Jamal Khader

I am one of the authors of the Kairos document. I don't see any "extremist political views" or any other accusations you state. You are uprooting us from our land in the name of the Bible. "By acknowledging God's promises to His people", your way, does not only harm our cause, but justifies occupation, humiliation and denying our rights; it is distorting the Word of God and is exactly what I meant by the Replacement Theology. How do you explain the Jesus is the fulfillment of the Scriptures? the Yes of God to His promises? how does Jesus explain the notions of "land", "promises"... Our Christian reading of the Old Testament should be through our faith in the New, according to Catholic teaching. If you see the Kairos as embracing the replacement theology, read it again, if you read it in the first place. How can see what is not there ?!

22/11/2010 Ariel

dear fr. Khader,

you are ignoring what I just wrote above. We are against every form of injustice, humiliations, and abuses of your rights. But the Kairos document has been severely criticized by many Christians - including those sympathetic to your plight - for being biased, unbalanced, unfair, and very political. The fact that the leaders of the local Church have not officially endorsed it should tell you something: even they think that it is extreme, political, and very imbalanced. By continuing to support this very bad document you undermine your own credibility and alienate many Christians who would otherwise like to help you.

As you know, the promise of the land of Israel to the Jewish people, very often repeated in the OT, is never revoked in the NT. God does not cancel his promises to His people or change His mind, for His gifts and calling to Israel are irrevocable (cf. Rom 11:29). To claim that God went back on His promise would be to attack His very character and covenant faithfulness. Yes, His promises are fulfilled in Christ, extending His blessings to all Christians, but they are a fulfillment and not a cancellation of His promises to Israel. One can support God's promises to the Jewish people, and at the same time support justice and dignity for the Palestinians. Why should the two be opposed?

We have published a critique of the Kairos document, and we encourage you to read also our address to our Arab Christian brothers. Perhaps it is time for a new approach, Fr. Khader. If perhaps instead of just angrily blaming Israel for everything, you and the other authors would reflect on God's covenant with Israel (as difficult as this may be), affirm His faithfulness to His people instead of denying it, humbly and clearly acknowledge the evils of Islamic Palestinian terrorism which caused the construction of the dreadful security wall, condemn the Hamas rockets as loudly as you condemn Israeli injustices, publicly ask our Jewish brothers for forgiveness for decades of Palestinian hatred and violence against them - now THAT would be a courageous and admirable approach in the true Spirit of Christ that would win you so many more supporters for your cause than your present anti-Israel approach. Remember that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse them will be cursed. Choose blessings and let uswork together in upholding both God's covenant promises to Israel and in working for peace, justice and dignity for your own people!

22/11/2010 Fr. Jamal Khader

Simple questions: Do you support the occupation of the Palestinian Territories (what you will call Judea and Samaria)? Is that a Palestinian land or an Israeli land?

If God promised this land to His people, is His plan to displace the Palestinians from their land and make them refugees? Is affirming the faithfulness of God to His people means denying the Palestinians their national rights? Is the modern State of Israel, with its occupation, a fulfillment of God's promises?

If you see the Kairos document as "very bad", you are unable to understand what justice means. you can repeat ad nauseam that you want justice, but what you do is supporting injustice, in the name of God! and please, do not pretend that you care about the Palestinians, because you don't.

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" (Jn 9, 41)

P.S. you can continue to blame the victims for their suffering, but this will not bring justice and reconciliation. just remember that the (Christian) West committed the Holocaust, not the Muslims; the (Catholic) west spread the "teaching of contempt", not the Palestinians. and now you pretend to teach us how to deal with the Jewish people?

22/11/2010 Ariel

Dear fr. Khader,

These are good questions but not necessarily “simple.” If they were that simple, then surely someone would have solved them by now. We do not claim to have definitive answers to them. We don’t support the difficult situation of the Palestinian Territories, but we also don’t think the term “occupation” is appropriate, for then why didn’t the Palestinians speak of previous “Jordanian occupation” (1948-67), “British occupation” (1917-48.), or even “Turkish occupation”? Since there was never a Palestinian state, we believe that the road to peace has to be based on correct facts on not on artificial revisions of history that falsely claim that Israel just “occupied Palestine” for no reason, ignoring the fact that every time territory has changed hands in the last 100 years it was a response to violence or acts of aggression from Arab countries against Israel. As you know, Arab violence and terrorism against Jews (already a problem from the 1920s through the 60s) came long before the “occupation” – so to find a just solution this too needs to be acknowledged and repented of.

Palestinian or Israeli land? Well, as you know, clearly according to the Scriptures God promised the land to Israel. But is it therefore God’s plan to displace Palestinians and make them refugees? No, certainly not, for He is a God of justice. We think that Israel should repair injustices when they have truly been committed. But we don’t understand why Israel has integrated hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries from the 1948 war and nobody talks about their “rights”, while Palestinian refugees are kept in camps as political playing cards to further a political agenda. There are two sides to the conflict. Blaming only one side and whitewashing the very wrong deeds committed by the other is not the road to peace and justice, which must be based on truth.

We are not sure about “Palestinian national rights” – Palestinian rights, certainly, but national rights… we are concerned about the danger of Islamism as a much greater threat to Christians than Israel. We also find the anti-Jewish incitement and hatred in Palestinian culture very disturbing, with all the talk one hears of “liberating all of Palestine” – including Tel Aviv and Haifa, meaning in effect the destruction of Israel. After all, Palestinians voted Hamas into power, so it makes us very reluctant to support the national rights of a people who would vote for and support an organization committed to the destruction of Israel. I have in fact personally spoken to many Palestinian Christians who prefer to live under Israeli sovereignty and democracy rather than the looming threat of an Islamic rule and Sharia law.

Is the modern state of Israel with its “occupation” a fulfillment of God’s promise? Since God promised to return the people of Israel to their land, we would certainly see God’s hand behind the modern return of the Jews. We don’t believe the modern state of Israel is strictly speaking a “fulfillment” of those promises because it is still mixed up with human sin and the messy politics of the Middle East – which has caused a lot of hurt and heartbreak on both sides. Yet Israel’s holiness is not a prerequisite for God’s faithful action, as we see in His providence over Israel in the OT.

22/11/2010 Fr. Jamal Khader

Here is what I understood from you message: there is no occupation; Palestinians have no national rights; there was never an independent Palestinian State, so why create it now?; Islam and arab terrorism is the problem; and Palestinians need to apologize from Israel; and God's hand is behind the modern state of Israel.
You have the right to think whatever you want, even that the muslims are the incarnation of devil. but to pretend to say that in the name of God, the Bible and the Catholics is not consistent with your ideology.
What you are saying is pure zionist ideology that (ab)uses the Word of God.

If you don't recognize me as part of the Palestinian PEOPLE, I don't want your pity to my sufferings.
Besides your prayers, what do you do for justice to the Palestinians?

23/11/2010 Yochanan

Can I make a few points?

1. To speak about the Jewish return en masse to the Land of their forefathers ("the gifts and the call are irrevocable", Rom 11,29) is one thing, the administration of justice for its inhabitants is another. The two issues should be kept separate. We can perfectly well uphold the second, while accepting the first.

2. The whole issue of whether or not there will be a Palestinian State (rather than an Autonomy) has been under discussion for some years. After the Palestinian leadership rejected the Israeli offers of 2000 (Camp David), 2001 (Taba), and 2007 (Annapolis), and after the splitting of the Palestinian Autonomy into two rival parts (West Bank and Gaza), it is difficult to know what exactly the Palestinians understand by their 'Palestinian National Rights'. The latest opinion polls suggest that Palestinians want all the land West of the Jordan River for themselves (cf. 60% of polled Palestinians accept a two-state solution, but only as a step to a one state solution) and, of course, they already form the majority (70%) of the population East of the Jordan River, in Jordan.

3. According to Malcolm Lowe's review on this website, Fr. Khader's Kairos Palestine document subtly aligns itself with the Palestinian desire for one state in which they will be the majority: “A naïve reader will not notice here what a more attentive reading reveals: the authors want to see a single state embracing Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Indeed, nowhere in the document does the term “two states” occur. Likewise, the term “occupation” is freely used, but without a clear statement of what areas are considered to be “occupied.” Thus the document delivers different messages to different audiences. Well-intentioned but unwary sympathizers can imagine that the authors subscribe to “two states for two peoples,” but insiders can be sure that the ultimate aim is the old one of a unitary Palestine”. In view of the present ascendancy of Fundamentalist Islam in the region, there is no doubt that such a state would rapidly come under Islamic domination and Sharia Law, as has happened in Gaza and is about to happen in Lebanon, for example. So the whole discussion of Palestinian statehood now revolves around whether this Land should be all under the Muslims or all under the Jews. With what is happening to Christians under Islamic regimes throughout the Middle East, but especially in Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Gaza, it is astonishing that Fr. Khader should be promoting a situation that would bring Islamic, or more likely Islamist, rule in this country.

4. Under these circumstances what should Christians be doing? What does Jesus tell us by his own example? Are not the Palestinians in a similar position to that of the Jews of his time, when the Romans ruled their territory? Just as the Jewish people in those days were driven by nationalist Jewish zealots to rebel against the Romans and expel them totally from the land of Palestine, so now the Palestinian people are being urged by nationalist Islamic zealots to rebel against the Israelis and expel them totally from the land of Israel. Far from inciting, or in any way supporting, the nationalist rebellion against the Romans, Jesus focused on bringing the Kingdom of God close to his countrymen. The degree to which Jesus set himself apart from the nationalist aspirations of his contemporaries is revealed by his uncommonly sympathetic attitude to the Roman occupiers: for example, he admired the Roman centurion's faith and was pleased to heal his child or servant (Mt 8,5-13 et par), he counseled his people to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (foremost among whom were the Romans, Mt 5,43-48 et par.), he advised them to go two miles with the soldier who forced them to go only one mile (Mt 5,41), he recommended paying taxes to Caesar (Mt 22,15-22), he recognized that Pilate's authority came from God (Jn 19,11), and he begged the Father to forgive the Roman soldiers who crucified him (Lk 23,34). As the Israelis today stand in a similar position to the Romans in those days, it does not take much to imagine what our Lord's attitude to them would be. This also should be the attitude of our Church. Our purpose as a Church should be to win the hearts of the Jews for Christ, just the early followers of Jesus were instructed to win over the hearts of the Romans.

5. Fr. Khader's conclusion is immensely saddening: "If you don't recognize me as part of the Palestinian PEOPLE, I don't want your pity to my sufferings. Besides your prayers, what do you do for justice to the Palestinians?" If I interpret this rightly, Fr Khader is essentially saying he is first and foremost a Palestinian, before being a Catholic or a Christian. Nationalist concerns are uppermost for him and trump fellowship in Christ. He wants no pity or help from those who do not support his irredentist Palestinian cause. If the Church decides that it is essential for the Jews to be gathered here in this Land, at this time, for God's inscrutable purposes, whatever they are, then Fr Khader wants no pity or help from the Church. His idea of justice is a Palestinian State from the river to the sea, ruled by anyone except the Jews. This could be the position of a Nationalist Church of Palestine, but it does not resonate with the post-Vatican II Catholic Church as far I understand it.

23/11/2010 Ariel

thank you Yochanan for these comments. I totally agree with you. Fr. Khader I am also very disappointed with your reply. I went through the trouble of writing a response as balanced as I could, and you respond with an oversimplified caricature of my position. Of course we do recognize you as part of the Palestinian people, how else should we? What do we do for justice for the Palestinians (with our very limited means)? Try to maintain a loving and encouraging presence to all people of the Holy Land - affirming both God's promise for Israel, and the need to restore justice and dignity to the Palestinians. Again - why should these be mutually exclusive?

In all sincerity, what do you propose we should do to make you happy? Engage in anti-Israel activism like you? Deny God's promises to His people as affirmed by St. Paul? Bash and blame Israel for everything and pretend that Palestinians have never done anything wrong? Live in the illusion that Islamic hatred of Jews and increasing oppression of Christians is just a myth?

In other words, are you saying that a good Catholic must automatically embrace the Palestinian nationalist cause, and one who has sympathies towards Israel is automatically a bad Catholic?

Yochanan has asked a sobering but serious question that is worthy of consideration: as a priest, are you first and foremost a Christian and minister of the Lord, longing and working for the Kingdom of God, or are you primarily an anti-Israel political activist striving towards Palestinian nationalist ambitions - which, if they ever become realized, are not by any means a guarantee that life will become easier for Palestinian Christians?

23/11/2010 Athol

Father Khader you do not speak for all Palestinian Christians. I met many Palestinian Christians when I lived in Jerusalem who told me that privately they prefer Israeli rule to Muslim; however in public they had to pretend they supported the Muslims out of fear. The Muslims told them. "First we will get rid of the Saturday people and then you Sunday people." Many of them disliked the approach of Michel Sabbah whom they called the "Muslim Patriarch". Many of them were so disgusted with the worldly, materialistic and political nature of many of the priests and Bishops in the Holy Land that they only went to the church infrequently for special feasts etc.

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.

The Father and the Two Sons: A New Parable on Replacement Theology

A good father once had a firstborn son whom he deeply loved. As a token of his love for his son, the father gave him an old and beautiful family photo album.  This photo album was very special. It not only contained pictures, but also all the great stories of the family's past, as well as records of all their ancient customs and traditions - traditions which were still loved and cherished by the family to this very day, because they represented their very fabric and identity.  The firstborn son really loved this book.  He loved to read it hours on end, over and over, because it reminded him of the venerable traditions of his forefathers, of the great love of his own father for him, and of who he was today.  The old book shaped his identity and even inspired him and guided him in his day-to-day life.

Now because the father was very good and generous, he and his wife decided to adopt another boy - an abandoned orphan.  They lovingly took the boy into their family and he truly became another son to them.  At the same time, since they now lived in the modern age, the father bought a state of the art computer for his family. This computer not only had an archive of the family pictures and traditions, but of course it could do much more: it had games, Internet, graphics and music programs, encyclopedias, videos, etc.

The newly adopted son really loved this computer - and rightly so, because it truly was a beautiful gift that the father lovingly gave to his family. But for some reason, the firstborn son was not as enthusiastic about the computer as his adopted brother. The firstborn son was somewhat curious about the computer, but he still preferred to leaf through the yellowed pages of his old family album, remembering all the great stories of old and how these had shaped his family, who he is, and how they still lived today. 

The firstborn son's love for the old book began to annoy the newly adopted son, who was much more interested in the computer than in the book.  Instead of inquiring as to why the firstborn son loved the book so much, instead of showing interest for the heritage and customs of the family who had so kindly adopted him, and instead of expressing gratitude towards their heritage, he started to denigrate it.

After all, the computer was so much better than the old book!  Why hang on to the old antiquated thing? it should just be discarded. It served a purpose for a time but now we are in the computer age. Why stubbornly hang on to all the outdated traditions described in the book? The family should just let go of them and instead spend more time surfing the net.  Sure, the old book served a purpose before there were computers. It was a kind of preparation for the computer age.  As for now, we may want to keep the book somewhere on the shelves, as a collection piece, just to help us understand and appreciate the computer better, but it no longer carries real value of its own. Surely the firstborn son was retrograde and obstinate for hanging on to the old thing and not showing more interest for the computer.

Sadly, as a result of the adopted son's arrogant attitude, the firstborn son began to hate the computer and his adopted brother. He no longer wanted to have anything to do with the computer, and he hung on even more forcefully to his old book, the cherished sign of his father's love for him.  The result was a painful division in the family. Instead of both brothers joyfully sharing the computer (and the adopted brother appreciating and respecting the firstborn son's special love for the old book) as it should have been as a result of the father's goodness and generosity, there was now jealousy and animosity between the brothers - the adopted son boasting about the superiority of the computer and scorning the obsolescence of the old book, and the firstborn tenaciously holding on to his cherished album and no longer interested at all in the computer.

The reader will forgive me if the parallels are somewhat limping (suggestions for improvement are welcome) - but I think you will perceive the analogy:

The father is God. The firstborn son is Israel. The old album is the Torah, deeply loved by Israel as the sign of the covenant between God and His people. The computer is the Gospel.  The newly adopted son is the Church (or rather Gentile Christians). Obviously, there was no need to set the computer against the book - the Gospel against the Torah.  Both were beautiful gifts, lovingly bestowed by the father onto his sons.  True, in many ways the computer is vastly superior to the old book. But as the firstborn son had a particular historical and cultural attachment to the old book, so Israel has a great love for the Torah, because it is not only the sign of God's covenant love for them but also their history book and the record of their customs which have shaped their very identity to this day. If the adopted son had truly desired to share the computer with his brother, the firstborn son, he could have simply told him about it and all the great things that it did, with enthusiasm and excitement.  But he also could have shown some interest, respect, and appreciation for the old family album and everything it represented.  This surely would have strengthened the friendship between the two boys and caused the firstborn son to be more interested in the computer.

Likewise, many supersessionist Gentile Christians rail against Israel for having rejected the Gospel. Instead of proclaiming the good news of Christ with joy and love, with gratitude and appreciation to the Jewish people because they as Gentiles have now been "adopted into the household of Israel" (Eph 2), demonstrating a humble eagerness to learn about the rich Jewish traditions (many of whom not only were divinely revealed but also shaped who Jesus was and is), they spend more time denigrating the Torah and the Mosaic Covenant - appreciating it, perhaps, for its historical value as a preparation for the Gospel and retaining the moral foundation of the Decalogue, but dismissing the rest as outdated and superseded - certainly of no practical use today for the people to whom it was given.  These advocates of replacement theology are blind as to why Israel would still love and cherish the Torah, not realizing that it is their own arrogant attitude that constitutes the chief obstacle to the Jewish people accepting the Gospel.

Before we may hope to see Israel's eyes opened to the light of the Gospel, may we pray that the veil of arrogance over too many Christian eyes be lifted, that we may come to a more humble appreciation of the root into which we have been grafted:

And if some of the branches [unbelieving Jews] were broken off, and you [gentile Christian], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."  Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.   For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.  Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.  And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.  For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?  (Rom 11:17-24)

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?