Jews, Christians and Muslims write 'open letters' to Pope

This is the inscription above the plaque about wartime Pope Pius XII that is in the Holocaust Museum and that Pope Benedict XVI will avoid seeing when he visits Yad Vashem while in Israel this week. According to Vatican commentator John Allen, 'one core aim of Benedict XVI's journey this week is to re-introduce himself to the Muslim world, clearing away the debris from what he conceded this morning is "the burden of our common history." The drama is whether this 82-year-old pontiff, who has sometimes had his problems with public relations, is able to pull it off. It seems he might be. A Jordanian prince has already welcomed his liberalising of the Latin Mass.  Follow the Pope's pilgrimage by reading our reports from James Hider and others at TimesOnline's faith page. But also you can do no better than follow Luke Coppen, editor of The Catholic Herald, on Twitter. And to grasp just some of the challenges confronting 'B16', as Twitterers refer to him, read No Going Back, a collection of 35 letters to the Pope from leading Jewish, Muslim and Christian men and women published by the Holocaust Centre to coincide with his arrival in Israel. The letters, written on the basis of what each author would say if given five minutes with the Pope, is edited by Catholic nun Carol Rittner and Stephen Smith, chair of the Holocaust Centre.

Here are a few extracts:

Dierdre Mullan, a Sister of Mercy from Ireland is Director of Mercy Global Concern at the UN in New York. Referring to the holocaust denial of traditionalist bishop Richard Williamson and another incident of antisemitic prejudice she encountered, she warns that the Church has yet to 'fully engage' with this prejudice: 'I... write as a concerned member of our Roman Catholic Church because I believe that Church teaching about antisemitism has never seriously left bookshelves or been filtered to the altars or pews of many of our churches.'

Abdul Hakim Murad, lecturer in Islamic studies at Cambridge, writes: 'Israel, living by the sword, is in grave peril of dying by the sword. The belief that she will forever defeat her enemies who crowd in on every side, and that she can eternally frustrate the Palestinian will to return home, is not founded in reason, the laws of history or scriptural promise... In its wisdom, the Holy See responded negatively to Zionist aspirations when these were first made known. The righteous concerns of the popes seem far-sighted and prophetic indeed... But the Vatican does not only have an absolute duty, recalled at Yad Vashem more than anywhere else, to speak against the forces of established power and privilege, to ensure the long-term safety of the Jewish people through the peaceful dismantling of Zionism.... If the Church sides, as Christ did, with the poor, the refugees and the victims of occupation, the Muslim world will surely hail the Church as an authentic servitor of God's truth.'

Holocaust survivor Shlomo Breznitz,  who lived because a nun, Sister Agatha, hid him and other Jewish  children in a Catholic orphanage, became founding director of the RD Wolfe Centre for psychological stess at Haifa university and is now president of CogniFit, which develops brain fitness software. He writes: 'As individuals and groups, we remember too much for too long. The chances of an Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement would have been much better were it possible to wipe out most of our collective memories. They serve as a justification for retaliation for past grievances only too often. In the Jewish-Christian context, the memory of the Spanish Inquisition and countless pogroms throughout Europe over the centuries are deviously countered by the still often heard claim that Jews killed The Son of God himself.....Consequently, the only option left for us is the need to prevent the occasions that can provoke the aggressive impulse.'

Ed Kessler, director of the Woolf Insitute of Abrahamic Faiths, writes: 'Let us together develop a new series of biblical commentaries, which consists of profound and insightful interpretations offered by Christians and Jews over many centuries. Let us make Jewish and Christian biblical interpretation accessible to both our communities and let us bring the Bible back into synagogue and church in a way that is sensitive to the Jewish-Christian relationship.'

Emmanuel Tanay, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Wayne State University in Detroit and a holocaust survivor, writes on the Church's commitment to repentance. 'For centuries, the Catholic Church practised retribution against the helpless Jews for a crime our ancestors did not commit - the crucifixion of Jesus, which was a Roman punishment against a rebellious Jew. The time has come for the Catholic Church to recognise that this unjustified accusation contributed to the genocide of the European Jews. This is a prerequisite for a meaningful dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jews.'

Hedi Fried, Auschwitz survivor and university lecturer, writes to the Pope: 'We need you to help us transmit knowledge about the Holocaust to the world at large, and we need you to silence Holocaust deniers in your Roman Catholic Church community. Justice demands it. Truth requires it.'

Comments

[J Pearce]

"Those who cannot learn from the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of history."

The single, overwhelming lesson from history is that unquestioning, irrational and dogmatic commitment to an inflexible ideological position, inevitably results in conflict and its corollary, the persecution and extermination of untold innocents.

Humanity and society works best when co-operating, not conflicting.

You're one of the bad guys, Geoff.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Why are you so certain that the great religions of the world have to be eternally locked in mortal hostility? People of different religions live together peacefully all the time, here in the United States just as they do in Britain and PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE ELSE." (my capitals)
- James Warren, 14 MAY 2009, 01:05

Mr Warren, I refer you to my post in response to J Pearce (13 MAY 2009, 21:47).
Like Mr Pearce, you too are incapable of learning from the lessons of history. Even the history of the United States is unknown to you: does the name 'Waco' mean anything to you?
Those who cannot learn from the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of history. This means you, Mr Warren.

[James Warren]

To Geoffrey Smith:

Why are you so certain that the great religions of the world have to be eternally locked in mortal hostility? People of different religions live together peacefully all the time, here in the United States just as they do in Britain and pretty much everywhere else.

Religion sometimes provides a cover for ethnic and racial hostility and extreme nationalism, but the vast majority of people of all faiths just want to get along and do exactly that. The Israel/Palestine situation is fundamentally a struggle of competing nationalisms, not a illustration of some eternal incompatibility of Judaism and Islam.

Most people, these days, wherever they live,truly do not care what religion their neighbors follow, particularly when people have education enough to view the world through modern eyes and not through the prism of a medieval pre-rational religious mindset.

[Steve]

Italy lost 15% of its Jews to the holocaust - a massively lower % than in other occupied/axis European countries. The wartime Chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic! Were these facts just chance? Of course not, the Vatican and numerous monasteries/convents in Italy were refuges for Jews at the risk of the lives of those who accepted them.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Compromise is the best guarantee. Even the Pope seems dimly aware of the realpolitik of his position..."
- J Pearce, 13 MAY 2009, 11:46

The bulk of your post up to this point simply bears out my assertion in my previous post: you are incapable of learning the lessons of history. The rules of the game have not changed, no matter how many times you say they have.
Dr Lancaster can dream about the 'co-existence' between Jews and Muslims that she alleges exists in Israel, but even she cannot explain away the existence of the wall that separates the two nations and destroys any illusion of peaceful co-existence and harmonious living together of the two creeds. A wall that Pope Benedict had to pass through to get from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, a matter of only a few miles!
Quite apart from this wall, there is the small matter of hundreds of suicide bombings which have occurred on Israeli soil, not to mention the ceaseless shelling of Israeli villages by Hamas and Hezbollah, both of them Islam-motivated, and one of which, may I remind you, was democratically elected by the people of Gaza.
It is the height of idiocy to pretend that communal relations between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, including Israel, are pacific and harmonious.
The stark fact remains that the Muslims are determined to wipe out the Jews. Their Koran demands it. They cannot negate this objective without expurgating whole sections of their holy book, and reneging on 1400 years of their history. I do realise that this uncompromising stance of theirs makes your secular approach to the situation so futile and impotent, but that is the inevitable result of pretending that the facts of history are just words in schoolbooks and have no meaning or relevance to the events of today. The 'rules' have not changed and will not change.
There is conflict going on right now in Darfur in the Sudan, in Orissa in India, where the Christian minority is being persecuted by the Hindus, and in Iraq, where the Christian minority is being wiped out by the Muslims.
It is sheer nonsense, as well as sheer rhetoric, to proclaim that peaceful co-existence between religions is a feasible proposition.
Secular government does not bring peace to a country beset by religious problems, it just creates an even worse situation. In our own country, it has produced the horrors of abortion and embryonic 'research', and threatens to increase the horrific social unrest by legalising euthanasia, a prelude to eliminating the 'excessive' number of old folk and reducing the government's responsibility for providing pensions.
Secularism is an unmitigated evil, operating without any moral restraint, and having no compunction about destroying religion. It must be opposed by all means possible.

[J Pearce]

"You are not seriously suggesting that these two communities are living together in peace and harmony? Or that they have any intention of doing so?"

Yes I am. I am referring to the numerous posts submitted by Dr. Irene Lancaster to this blog (and her own), who lives and works in Israel, which describes the peaceful community co-existence of Jews and Muslims. Evidence straight from the horses mouth, Geoff.

The fact that it can and does happen disproves entirely your thesis. That other groups of Israeli's and Muslims do NOT choose to co-exist peacefully, is not definitve evidence to prove your hypothesis. Historically speaking, it wasn't that long ago when Christians were at each others necks in this country...

"Whatever your wish-list may have in mind, conflict is inevitable between the two faiths..."

Only if you choose to believe that. Your ideological starting point is the implicit belief that Christianity is the one, true, only faith of God and that conflict with Islam is an inevitable consequence of that.

This is a flawed premise, simply because you cannot state for certain how many other people share this belief. It is, in your words, "sheer rhetoric".

I'm not saying the potential for religious conflict doesn't exist. But the greatest safeguard we have against it is our secular democracy. You forget that we have already had decades of immigration by non-Christians. Yet the only major civil disturbances in this country during that time have been racially or economically motivated and have not been a result of outright religious antagonism. The fact that our society is secular mitigates against religiously-motivated conflict, no question.

And in terms of history, in the increasingly secularised and democratic West, the instances of purely religion-vs-religion conflct has dramtically decreased since the Enlightenment era (and what conflicts have took place have inevitably been Christian-on-Christian jostling for theological dominance, or Christian anti-semitic pogroms). If we are to deduce anything from this, then it is that it is Christiantiy which is more likely to trigger any potential inter-religion war, than secularists os atheists!

We are in a vastly different historical era to that which was dominated by theocratic empires, Geoff. There is no vast, united Muslim empire camped on our borders anymore (they can barely agree amongst themselves most of the time, a trait common to Christians).

The rules of the game have changed. Secular democracy is the best, probably only way to go, to safeguard against the theocratic excesses of history, which you seem so certain are going to repeat ad infinitum.

Compromise is the best guarantee of peace. Even the Pope seems dimly aware of the realpolitik of his position...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It is irrational to maintain that peaceful co-existence is not possible between different religions."
- J Pearce, 12 MAY 2009, 17:11

In that case, the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Muslims must be very irrational people.
You are not seriously suggesting that these two communities are living together in peace and harmony? Or that they have any intention of doing so?

"In this country and many other Western countries, Christians and Muslims do exist in a compromise between faiths."
- op. cit.

For the time being. If you had read my original post carefully, you would have noticed that I used the word ultimately. Whatever your wish-list may have in mind, conflict is inevitable between the two faiths, particularly as Islam grows in strength of numbers and begins to dominate the social life of this country. Then you will find that Dr Rowan Williams' idea of a small degree of sharia being introduced into English law is the thin end of the wedge. When the Muslims are strong enough, they will demand the whole of sharia being applied in the UK - and woe betide people like you who may have the impertinence to object!

"Your slavish adherence to the orthodox Catholic moral paradigm reveals a personal belief in the inevitability of religious conflict."
- op. cit.

Sheer rhetoric. Once again, your ignorance of history is making you look foolish. History is on my side in this argument. Even the short period of history 1948-2009, with its events in the Middle East, should be enough to convince you that a religion-motivated conflict can be as inevitable as night following day, particularly when there is possession of land at stake.
Who do the Muslims blame for the Crusades? The Christian West. Who do the Christians blame for the Crusades? The Muslims and their colonial expansionism. Have you heard of the battle of Lepanto? The siege of Vienna? The Ottoman Empire?
Yes, of course, religious conflict is inevitable, but that is a long way from saying that I relish the thought of it. It is people like you who refuse to learn from the lessons of history who are condemned to repeat the mistakes of history, and that includes most of the Muslim nations.
This is the real reason why the Holocaust must never be forgotten. To forget it is to see it repeated at some time in the future.

[J Pearce]

"Just as there is not one chance in a trillion of peaceful co-existence between Judaism and Islam, so also there is no chance of a compromise between Christianity and Islam. "

I believe this statement conforms to a number of criteria I outlined [7 May 2009, Faith schools thread] as your argumentative modus operandi, Geoff.

It is irrational to maintain that peaceful co-existence is not possible between different religions. Israel itself, as Dr Irene Lancaster has pointed out on numerous prior occasions, contains many mixed religious communities which co-exist peacefully. The fact they exist at all nullifies the veracity of your logic.

In this country and many other western countries, Christians and Muslims do exist in a compromise between Faiths. The reason the compromise works is because the law of the land is delivered by a secular, democratic administration - and not a prejudiced religious theocracy. Another classic example, Geoff, of your tendency to ignore facts and project your own, unbending, one-dimensional dogmatism onto the world.

Your slavish adherence to the orthodox Catholic moral paradigm, reveals a personal belief in the inevitability of religious conflict. Indeed, were the Pope to hypothetically follow your personal demands (as outlined in your own "open" letter posted 11 May 11:56), this course of action would inevitably speed up the process of actual, violent conflict erupting between people of different religious faiths.

Ergo, you reveal your latent desire for inter-faith conflict - the corollary of which would result in untold suffering and death. The idea of which, has not merited the merest flicker of your conscience.

Hence my other, previous charge - that you fail to show any shred of humanity or empathy to anything that does not conform to Catholic dogmatic absolutism - is proved utterly, completely valid. After all Geoff, it is you who is slavering at the idea of a violent religious war, not me.

[ElizabethR]

"...there is not one chance...of peaceful co-existence between Judaism and Islam...no chance of a compromise between Christianity and Islam." G Smith

If this is so, then moral, peaceful, rational non-believers, or those for whom the identification of unlikely gods is not an issue, must strongly insist upon their own reasoned presence. They must continue to challenge, oppose and deconstruct the belligerant, uncompromising stance of some of these unmutual obsessives - particularly those who ignore human rights and clearly do not give a shit about anyone other than themselves and their own ideological notions.

Mr Smith begins to make a compelling case for secular values. So, since in his assessment Christianity's position is equally immutable and incapable of co-existence or compromise, how does that sit regarding clerics appointed to the legislature and also swearing oaths of allegiance and secrecy as members of the wholly undemocratic Privy Council?

[ElizabethR]

"The Pope is deeply sympathetic with all those who suffer from this objective disorder..." G Smith

And I'm sure that many non-believing gays and others are also very sympathetic to Herr Ratzinger's own sad delusions and his behavioural, sexual and socially hostile 'disorders'.

I am also sure that since he is prone to making highly irresponsible comments; for example, recent pronouncements over the use of condoms - pronouncements which directly undermine the struggle in Africa and elsewhere to reduce the death toll from AIDS - rational people, both straight and gay, weep for his apparent lack of social, spiritual and scientific understanding.

It is also fair to suggest that many of Ratzinger's professed views, on this issue, homosexuality and others are not necessarily supported by or representative of the majority of Catholics in the UK.

[Geoffrey Smith]

A lot of people would do well to stop day-dreaming about their wish-list and face up to the realities of the present-day world.
Just as there is not one chance in a trillion of peaceful co-existence between Judaism and Islam, so also there is no chance of a compromise between Christianity and Islam.

[James Warren]

A lot of people would do well to stop twisting the words and actions of more than half a century ago to justify extreme and unrealistic political positions today.

[Merseymike]

Well, Islam isn't going away, as any common-sense observation displays. Thus, co-existence will happen. There is no other choice.

As for other Christians telling the Romans what to do, its very much the same as the other way round.

But whilst governments have to be 'lived with', that does not mean capitulation and compromise. Or at least, it shouldn't. As everyone knows the truth, the question is very much what happens in the future, and that, whether you like it or not, means compromise.

[Mujib Rashad]

I think the Pope’s visit to the Middle East is cause for hope and optimism. Pope Benedict has always been open to dialogue with other religious groups and has sought to improve relations with all throughout his papacy. As “Jews, Christians and Muslims write open letters” to the Pope, I hope all of the followers of those Abrahamic faiths do acknowledge how much they have in common and progress from there. As the Pope visits churches, mosques and synagogues he does so with the intention to promote peaceful coexistence.

Last year at the Catholic-Muslim Forum in Rome the Pope acknowledged the recent increase in dialogue, initiatives and meetings between Catholic and Muslim groups. The Pontiff called for the "recognition of the centrality of the person and the dignity of each human being, respecting and defending life, which is the gift of God, and is thus sacred for Christians and for Muslims alike". He went on to say, "Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other which even today can create difficulties in our relations; let us work with one another to educate all people, especially the young, to build a common future." I think the Pope travels in that spirit in the Middle East today.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I just wish he [Pope Benedict] could find sympathy in his heart for the pain and, yes, persecution so many lesbian, gay and transgender people live through."
- Paul Halsall, 11 MAY 2009, 16:47

What makes you think the Pope does not have sympathy for homosexuals, Mr Halsall?
The Pope is deeply sympathetic with all those who suffer from this objective disorder, but he cannot be expected to approve of the sinful behaviour that so often results from submitting to this condition.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I do find it amusing that Catholics refuse to accept that their Church was, like it or not, utterly compromised in its support for fascist regimes."
- Merseymike, 11 MAY 2009, 15:07

Just as we have been 'utterly compromised' by our support for democratic governments? Our Church deals with the political fads of the day, whatever their make-up.

"What matters is moving forward, and the three religions have to somehow co-exist."
- op. cit.

A pipe-dream. Christianity can no more co-exist with Islam than we, the democratic nations of the West, could co-exist with Soviet Communism. Ultimately, one of them had to go.

"Catholics have no right to demand anything from other Christians, however..."
- op. cit.

But they have every right to demand from the Catholic Church anything they wish, right?
I think you know what you can do with that one, Mr M.

[Paul Halsall]

I watched Pope Benedict XVI visited Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem) today.

I am no fan of the pope, although I am Catholic. [For me Catholicism is about grace permeating the natural world though sacramental action rather than church organization.]

The pope argues that the names of those killed are remembered by Almighty God. He was genuinely moving as he recalled how for each of those killed, parents had once prayed for each of them at their birth.

I do not believe that this pope is Anti-Semitic.

I just wish he could find sympathy in his heart for the pain and, yes, persecution so many lesbian, gay, and transgender people live through.

PS: As to Pius XII, I tend to think he has been unfairly defamed by his detractors. The weird thing is that he is now a hero to Catholic conservatives. In biblical studies, especially, on the issue of evolution, on the legitimacy of using "periodic abstinence" for contraception, he was a flaming liberal.

http://englisheclectic.blogspot.com/2009/05/pope-at-yad-vashem.html

[Merseymike]

I do find it amusing that Catholics refuse to accept that their church was, like it or not, utterly compromised in its support for fascist regimes. They need to do plenty of apologising themselves, first and foremost.

But then, apologies for the past are somewhat pointless. What matters is moving forward, and the three religions have to somehow co-exist. It is up to the leaders of each to try and make this possible, but all three will have to compromise and forego their belief that their own case is the 'right' one.

Catholics have absolutely no right to demand anything from other christians, however, whose governance of their own part of christianity is their business and nothing to do with the Vatican

[Coel]

Geoffrey Smith writes: "Tell all non-Catholic Christians [...] that if they don't support the Catholic Church in her quest to abolish the evils of [...] contraception"

Tell us Geoffrey, in what way is contraception "evil"? In preparation for your answer I will go and check that my reserve stocks of derision are amply replenished.

[Geoffrey Smith]

My 'open letter' to Pope Benedict would contain the following requests:
(1) Proceed with the cause for the beatification of Pope Pius XII. If the Jews should raise an objection to it, tell them bluntly they are wrong and they must remove the offensive reference to the Pope at Yad Vashem.
(2) Demand an apology from the Muslims for the rape of North Africa and the extermination of Christians in those lands. As a corollary to this, they should also apologise for the invasion of Spain and France in the 8th century
with the subsequent slaughter of thousands of Europeans.
(3) Tell all non-Catholic Christians in the most forthright of terms that if they don't support the Catholic Church in her quest to abolish the evils of abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosex and embryonic "research", they don't have a soul's chance in Hell of bringing about Christian unity.
(4) Tell all self-styled 'Catholics' who don't personally approve of abortion, but won't impose their belief on those who disagree with them, that they are officially and formally excommunicated, and must not call themselves Catholics any longer, until they repent of their error and seek reconciliation with the Church.
Five minutes would, I think, be quite adequate to tell the Holy Father what he needs to do in order to bolster the confidence of the faithful in him, a confidence that is slowly receding as he avoids grasping these nettles.

[Mark]

Yad Vashem need to do some research and update their message.

"We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and prime minister of Israel).

"With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

"More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror" (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

"Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."[23] (Albert Einstein)

[Robert Ian Williams]

What a dignity and humility Pope Benedict has , when he can visit the Holoacaust memorial, even though the above inscription is deeply dishonest and hurtful to the memory of a previous Pope. The very same Pope who welcomed the Chief Rabbi of Rome into the Church in 1945.The new convert taking Pius as his baptismal name.

I visited the Museum of the Diaspora in Tel Aviv and all the items were dated Before the Common era ( BCE ) , Common era
( CE )..until you enter the room commemorating the Holocaust then the words "Christian era" appear!

The holocaust was an evil and TERRIBLE act..but it was the fruit of Neo-pagan Nazism and not Christianity.Granted that previous generations of Christiams acted shamefully towards Jews, as did did some jews towards to Christians during the early years of the infant Church.

[Joel]

I don't know who wrote the caption of that outrageous plaque criticizing Pius XII for not going out to observe the anti-Jewish pogrom. The fact is that all through the German occupation of Rome, the Vatican was surrounded by German troops with orders to shoot to kill the pope if he attempted to leave. The pope did not go anywhere to witness anything without express approval of the German commandant of the city.
It is just as well that Pius stayed put at his desk, because he was busy among other tasks in passing crucial intelligence that originated with Admiral Carneris of the Nazi High Command to the Allies. After the war the chief rabbi of Rome entered the Catholic Church, and took the given name of Pius -- Eugenio -- as his baptismal name in recognition of the vast service of the pope to Italian Jews.
When Pius passed away in 1958, Golda Meir of Israel gave a eulogy at his funeral.
There is a kind of insanity that strikes people on the subject of the Papacy: an uncontrollable urge to level the most preposterous accusations against the pope. Truly responsible and honestcommentators however see things differently.
Already at the time of the outbreak of the war, the New York Times published a highly unusual front page editorial commending the pope, Pius XII, for his unstinting, forthright, and courageous opposition to fascism and nazism. Don't the men and women who make wall signs for the Yad Vashem museum read the New York Times?

[Peter Palladas]

'His conciliatory words stopped short of fulfilling the demand of the influential Muslim Brotherhood, which had asked for the Pope to apologise for a 2006 speech in which he linked the Prophet Muhammad to terrorism.'

...and the apology should be? How about The Dis-Times apologising for ever suggesting that that is what the Holy Father meant?

'Influential' Muslim Brotherhood? Oh per-lease!

You are too fine a person to be ensnared in Mordor. Come over to the sunny uplands of The Shire.

[Jamie MacNab]

Well, it seems that we have Jews and Muslims fighting it out over a patch of land in the Middle East, and both arguing that the Christians should sort it out. And yet both would see Christianity destroyed.

What's wrong with the world?