Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Dale: Well, that didn't help. Cardinal Keeler claims that the "Reflections" document was just some ecclesial brainstorming:
"Cardinal Keeler, the U.S. Bishops' Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, said that the document, entitled Reflections on Covenant and Mission, does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA). The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S."
Ooookay. Um, then why say this in the original Reflections document:
"Participants examined how the Jewish and Roman Catholic traditions currently understand the subjects of Covenant and Mission. Each delegation prepared reflections on the current state of the question in each community." (emph. added)
Here's how Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "reflection": ...4. a fixing of the thoughts on something: careful consideration." In other words, in most understandings of English, a "reflection" is the product of careful thought, of ideas long weighed. It's not something you do to get the pot bubbling.
Ultimately, the "Reflections" document is indeed what the Catholic participants believe about the relationship between Christ, Christian evangelism and Judaism. That's what's so distressing. I'm not saying that the Jewish people and Jewish thought don't have a special relationship to Christianity, worthy of deep consideration. I'm certainly not saying that evangelism is a not profoundly sensitive issue with respect to Judaism, nor that Jewish people should not be approached with profound sensitivity and respect, especially for their freedom of conscience. Yes, there ought to be a recognition that they deserve some "space", given the hideous treatment endured at the hands of so-called Christians. However, contra Reflections, that does not mean that the Gospel is not for them. Not if the New Testament is to have any meaning.
The problem is the eagerness of our titular shepherds to abandon the Christian mission on the basis of no authority whatsoever. What else are they willing to toss aside after due "reflection"?
"Cardinal Keeler, the U.S. Bishops' Moderator for Catholic-Jewish relations, said that the document, entitled Reflections on Covenant and Mission, does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA). The purpose of publicly issuing the considerations which it contains is to encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S."
Ooookay. Um, then why say this in the original Reflections document:
"Participants examined how the Jewish and Roman Catholic traditions currently understand the subjects of Covenant and Mission. Each delegation prepared reflections on the current state of the question in each community." (emph. added)
Here's how Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "reflection": ...4. a fixing of the thoughts on something: careful consideration." In other words, in most understandings of English, a "reflection" is the product of careful thought, of ideas long weighed. It's not something you do to get the pot bubbling.
Ultimately, the "Reflections" document is indeed what the Catholic participants believe about the relationship between Christ, Christian evangelism and Judaism. That's what's so distressing. I'm not saying that the Jewish people and Jewish thought don't have a special relationship to Christianity, worthy of deep consideration. I'm certainly not saying that evangelism is a not profoundly sensitive issue with respect to Judaism, nor that Jewish people should not be approached with profound sensitivity and respect, especially for their freedom of conscience. Yes, there ought to be a recognition that they deserve some "space", given the hideous treatment endured at the hands of so-called Christians. However, contra Reflections, that does not mean that the Gospel is not for them. Not if the New Testament is to have any meaning.
The problem is the eagerness of our titular shepherds to abandon the Christian mission on the basis of no authority whatsoever. What else are they willing to toss aside after due "reflection"?
