December 17, 1971
Page 47855
CHRISTIANS SUPPORT UNIFIED JERUSALEM
HON. EDMUND S. MUSKIE OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, December 17, 1971
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in the coming Christmas period, it is expected that a record number of Christians from every part of the world will be going to Jerusalem. This pilgrimage will be only part of the continuing pilgrimage that has already brought hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims and Jews to Jerusalem this year alone. That glorious city is open for all to come and to worship – or refrain from worshiping – as they please. Whatever arguments may persist on other aspects of the tragic Middle East situation, there can be only great satisfaction in the knowledge that this holy city is now completely accessible to anybody choosing to go there.
In a world so torn by racial and national and religious tensions – India, Pakistan, Ireland, Vietnam – it is comforting to be reminded, as I was personally when I visited Jerusalem earlier this year, that peoples of diverse cultures and religions can indeed live in peace and with mutual respect. Not only are the holy places available to their respective adherents, but they are open to all people, regardless of religion, and in the last few years millions of people from all over the world have had the enriching experience of observing the symbols of other people's traditions and cultures.
As we approach the Christmas season, Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my Senate colleagues a most interesting document that has come to my attention. Prepared by the Interreligious Department of the American Jewish Committee, it is a compendium of recent statements made by Christian theologians and lay leaders in support of a unified Jerusalem. In the judgment of these observers, Israeli jurisdiction over Jerusalem is justified and should continue.
All of us who pray for peace in the Middle East should give careful consideration to these impressive statements on one of the controversial aspects of the troubled Middle East situation.
I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the body of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the document "Christians Support Unified Jerusalem" with an introduction by Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, director of the Interreligious Department of the American Jewish Committee.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CHRISTIANS SUPPORT UNIFIED JERUSALEM
(Prepared by the Interreligious Affairs Department of the American Jewish Committee)
INTRODUCTION
A growing number of prestigious and representative Christian leaders are opposed to proposals for the internationalization of Jerusalem and want the city to remain under Israeli jurisdiction. That is the primary conclusion that emerges from a survey of Christian public opinion compiled by the Interreligious Affairs Department of the American Jewish Committee.
Conducted as a "trends analysis" report, the survey sampled public statements, speeches, news articles and editorials issued in recent weeks by Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical leaders and organizations in the Christian communities. While far from comprehensive, the sampling covered various regions of the United States, as well as Europe, Latin America, and Israel.
In addition, conversations held between American Jewish Committee representatives and many of these Christian spokesmen have led us to the conviction that these views which support the present status of a reunified Jerusalem under Israeli jurisdiction – while recognizing the legitimacy of Arab rights – represent in fact the feelings of thousands upon thousands of Christian people in this country and abroad whose voices thus far have been far from adequately heard.
Those who have charged with incredibly polemical language that Israel was engaged in "the Judaization of Jerusalem" and in "the suffocation of Christians and Muslims" in the Holy City have managed to attract the overwhelming attention for their viewpoint in the general mass media and especially in the Christian journals and media. To the uninformed, the impact of that anti-Israel – and in some cases anti-Jewish – publicity has been to suggest that there is a monolithic, or at least a majority, Christian sentiment that opposes the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. The recent UN Security Council debate undoubtedly has reinforced that impression, especially since the Jordanian representative cited a whole range of Christian spokesmen – from Pope Paul VI to the National Council of Churches – as being uniformly identified with the Muslim position. (The Muslim position calls for the return of East Jerusalem to Muslim control, which was established in 1948 in the wake of the Jordanian military occupation of Jerusalem in violation of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.)
The frank intent of this document is to demonstrate that there is a substantial and growing body of respected and responsible Christian leadership whose positive sympathies toward Israel deserve to be taken into as serious account as those other Christian voices who have been more vocal and aggressive in advocating their anti-Israel positions. This leadership covers a broad range of the Christian communities – academic and intellectuals; seminaries, colleges and universities; clergy; religious teachers and nuns; theologians; committed Christian laymen and writers and editors of Christian journals.
At least five major issues emerge in this survey which command a consensus on the part of these Christian leaders:
(1) They oppose any possible internationalization or division of Jerusalem on the grounds that internationalization has never worked and would not be a viable solution since both Jordan and Israel adamantly oppose the plan. They share a widespread conviction that Israel should have complete control of the unified city of Jerusalem for historic reasons ("it is peculiarly and uniquely significant to the Jewish people as to no other people in the world") as well as for practical reason ("they are proving responsible trustees as is not likely true of any other group.")
They encourage further creative efforts by Israeli leaders to provide for "special (jurisdictional) arrangements" for Arab areas of Jerusalem. Several expressed the fear that an internationalization plan would lead to the introduction of troops from atheistic countries which could hardly serve the positive interests of any religious community in the Holy City.
(2) They applaud the behavior of Israel with respect to the holy places, characterizing it as "exemplary." Israel has already achieved the main purposes of internationalization which is to provide protection and free access. A Brazilian Catholic priest, who is also a member of the Brazilian House of Deputies, proposed "the internationalization of all holy places within the Israeli capital, Jerusalem;” a proposal which is now being actively explored by the Israel government with Vatican, World Council, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslim officials.
(3) They deny categorically recent accusations that Israel has been "suffocating" the Christian and Muslim populations in Jerusalem and in Israel. Christians living in Israel for many years declare that such charges do not coincide with the true situation. While there has been Christian Arab emigration, this is not a current phenomenon, since it has existed at least for the past thirty years.
In fact, they state, the contrary is true: since the end of 1948, the Christian and Muslim population of Israel has more than doubled. They also report that the exodus from Jerusalem is far less than that of the actual exodus of many Arab Christians from Arab countries. They describe as "false" the charge that Israel is "abolishing Jerusalem's Christian character," and testify that "the Israeli authorities do not hinder us in accomplishing our mission." Finally, they assert that Western Christian churches receive their information from sources that are mainly Arab and therefore "it is understandable how the presentation of this problem is influenced."
(4) They conclude that the housing programs in East Jerusalem are "legitimate efforts on the part of the Israeli government" to renew slum areas of the City and to rehouse Arabs and Jews in new dwellings. The development plans are in no sense designed to oust the Arabs nor to "suffocate" the Christian and Muslim populations. Nor do they believe that the building plans on the outskirts of Jerusalem would diminish the sanctity of Jerusalem, any more than "modern building plans for the suburbs of Washington, D.C., would deprive the White House and the area around it of their historic meaning." (Msgr. John M. Oesterreicher).
(4) Of especial importance are the statements of various Christian theologians who, for the first time, affirmed that no theological reasons exist for opposing the return of Jerusalem to Jewish sovereignty. While evangelical Christians have acknowledged in the past that the restoration of the Jewish people to Jerusalem represented the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies, the declarations by Father Karl Rahner, one of the most authoritative Catholic theologians, and by Father Marcel Dubois, Dominican philosopher in Israel, among others, were precedent-setting and of potentially great importance for the future of Christian theological understanding of Israel.
"I cannot see that the return of Jerusalem to Israel constitutes a real theological problem for a Christian such that reasons of faith would compel him to oppose the return," Father Rahner has written. Against the background of declarations of Church Fathers in the first four centuries, medieval polemicists, and the Papal statements to Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism, all of whom regarded the destruction of Jerusalem as God's punishment of the Jews, Father Rahner's statement and those of other Christian theologians writing in these terms assume especial significance.
An individual but significant view was expressed by Father M. Nobre, of Rio de Janeiro, a Roman Catholic priest and member of the Brazilian House of Deputies, when he urged Pope Paul to move "to establish diplomatic ties with Israel," calling that "the desire of all Catholics the world over." Five other Brazilian deputies expressed full solidarity with the priest's views.
In sum, it is our hope that the study and wide dissemination of these statements will contribute to a balance and perspective in the mounting discussions over the status of Jerusalem, resulting in the avoidance of invective and the searching out of solutions that will reconcile Muslims, Christians, and Jews and one to another. For that is what Jerusalem, the City of Peace, ultimately is all about. – Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, National Director of Interreligious Affairs, American Jewish Committee, October, 1971.
INTERNATIONAL
VATICAN POSITION ON JERUSALEM FIRM
VATICAN CITY, October 5, 1971.– A spokesman for the Vatican's Secretariat of State declared here this weekend that there has been no change in the Holy See's position on the question of Jerusalem since the Pope's speech on this issue June 21. The Pope on that occasion called for the granting of an international status to the holy places in Jerusalem. Vatican circles have since explained that this suggestion is different from internationalizing the city. The latter, they noted, is a strictly political matter while the former is a juridical one. The Vatican's announcement was made at the conclusion of the visit to Rome by Msgr. Pio Laghi, the Apostolic Delegate in Jerusalem. The Catholic prelate had consulted here with the Vatican's Secretary of State and other high officials on what the Catholic Church's reaction should be to the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution on Jerusalem and Israel's reaction to it. (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
GREAT BRITAIN
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES ON JEWS AND JUDAISM
"A City at Unity in Itself" – A plea for the present administration of Jerusalem was made by C. Witton-Davies, Anglican Archdeacon of Oxford, in the course of a review, in the London Catholic Weekly, The Tablet, 7 August 1971, of the new book by Dr. Walter Znder, Israel and the Holy Places of Christendom (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson). The Archdeacon writes:
For the present, Jerusalem as the rest of the Holy Land, is united and open to all comers, as had not been the case since 1948 before the June War of 1967. Jews, Christians and Muslims can approach their sanctuaries freely and conduct their respective religious ceremonies there. Externally at all events Jerusalem is again a city at unity in itself, as it had been up to 1948, after which it was divided by the no man's land that ended the war following the termination of the British Mandate. Beneath the surface there remain divisions and suspicions, but no one in their senses wishes to see a return to the pre-1967 divided State. The Jerusalem municipality is well administered under the mayoralty of Teddy Kollek, who has earned great respect and even affection from Jew and non-Jew alike. No other seems likely to achieve such a measure of cooperation as he can claim to have achieved. His administration is fair to all alike who will respect the rules and conform to civic normalities.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to say anything about Jerusalem or about any part of Terra Sancta that cannot be construed as politically biased one way or the other. But opinions must be expressed, whatever the hazard. So I say, with the advantage of the experience of three pilgrimages since the June War of 1967 as well as over five years' residence during the latter days of the British Mandate and half a dozen visits during the years of military partition, that the present has within it the seeds of a just and lasting settlement of the many problems inherited from the past.
LATIN AMERICA
BRAZILIAN DEPUTIES URGE VATICAN TO ESTABLISH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL
RIO DE JANEIRO, August 9. – Six members of the Brazilian House of Deputies of both the government and opposition parties have asked the Vatican to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. They also proposed internationalization of the holy places in Jerusalem. The deputies took that stand at special session of the House in Brasilia which was dedicated to Israel in connection with the transfer of the Israeli Embassy from Rio to Brasilia. One of the deputies, a member of MDB and a Catholic priest, Mr. Nobre praised Israel's "political and administrative form of humanitarian socialism" and the "Voluntary kibbutz system which characterizes the State's progress." Emphasizing that the anniversary of Israel's creation was "a great date in world history," the prelate warned against "increased anti-Jewish activities around the world" and censured the Catholic Church for maintaining "until not long ago" anti-Jewish expressions in prayer books. He also criticized Christians "who under the pretext of serving God," were spurring "furious anti-Semitism." He urged Pope Paul to move to establish diplomatic ties with Israel, calling that "the desire of all Catholics the world over." He also proposed internationalization of all holy places "within the Israeli capital – Jerusalem." At the same session, the other five deputies expressed full solidarity with the prelate's speech.
ISRAEL
The following story appeared in the September 26, 1971 issue of Maariv:
"Church leaders reject request to sign a petition to the U.N. concerning the 'Judaization' of Jerusalem."
Moslem public figures in East Jerusalem recently met with Church leaders in the capital, and asked that they sign the petition to the Security Council of the U.N. on the subject of "Judaization of Jerusalem." The Church leaders rejected the suggestion for Various reasons.
Jordanian authorities sponsored several meetings between Moslem personalities and Church leaders to convince them to take the same stand as they, on the eve of the Security Council discussion regarding the unification of Jerusalem.
It became known that most of these meetings, seven in number, were held with Catholic priests. During these meetings the Moslems made it clear that the silence of both Christians and Moslem public figures of East Jerusalem will be interpreted as a reconciliation with the unification of the city, and so they have a "public obligation" to voice their opinions.
All the priests that met with the Moslem leaders preferred to listen to the claims raised before them. As for taking a stand on the issue, the priests claimed that they are in Jerusalem to live here, and political matters concerning the city should be the concern of the Church centers.
CHRISTIAN ARABS SPEAK OF ISRAEL AS FULFILLED PROPHECY
JERUSALEM POST. – Two Christian Arabs yesterday voiced apparent support of the fundamentalist belief that the establishment of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The pair were speaking at the third session of the Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy at Binyenei Ha'ooma.
Mr. Found Sakhnini, pastor of the Baptist Church in Nazareth, noted that politics had caused a division of opinion among Christian Arabs on the subject. Speaking of his own view, he said: "We Christian Arabs believe in prophecy with justice, recognizing the rights of Jews and the rights of Arabs."
Mr. Sakhnini said that Moslem Arabs completely reject the Jewish claim to the land as "political theology." "The Jews claim the right to a land that was theirs 2,000 years ago. The Moslems claim that the land was theirs 23 years ago (Israel) and four years ago (East Jerusalem and the administered areas.) They ask who has more right to the land."
A strong condemnation of Arab hostility to Israel was voiced by Mrs. John W. Van den Hoeven, wife of the warden of the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. Mrs. Van den Hoeven, an Arab born in Sudan, said she had been brought up by her parents to hate and despise Jews. "Before 1948 it was because they killed Christ, even though my parents didn't care a penny for Christ. After 1948, the reason for hate was because they stole part of the Arab land from the Palestinians, even though my parents didn't care one bit about the Arab land or Palestinians."
Mrs. van den Hoeven, most of whose relatives are Moslems, said that the attitude of many Christian Arabs had been "tainted" by the Moslem majority among whom they lived. "Quite a few Arab (Christian) believers hate the Jews. The fault lies with the English and American missionaries who didn't teach us that to love Christ is to deny hate. I was born a Greek Orthodox, but I have become a Jew through the blood of Jesus Christ. I must love my brother, the Jew." Mrs. Van den Hoeven said: "God has given the land to the seed of Abraham, which is Isaac not Ishmael (as the Moslems claim.) "
CHRISTIANS IN ISRAEL VIEW THE JERUSALEM DEBATE
The following article appeared in a recent issue of Ma’ariv written by Ada Luciani and Yosef Tzuriel, reporters in Rome and Jerusalem:
"Because of the fact that United Nations is about to consider its fate, we are dedicating this special issue to the city which, for the past 400 years, has been the center of world history." This giant headline appears on the important Italian weekly La Espresso, that publishes in its latest issue a special article on Jerusalem including an analysis of the city's history and its religious, social, political, economic and architectural problems.
In a long article – after objectively analyzing Arab and Israeli viewpoints pertaining to the present and future of the city – Victor Zeigelman quotes Christians who do not agree with the Vatican's fears and accusations of the "abolition of the Christian character" of the Holy City.
In the opinion of Father Tournay, President of the Welfare Organization "Caritas" in East Jerusalem, the Vatican's accusations "do not coincide with the true situation. The Israeli authorities do not hinder us in accomplishing our mission. As to Christian Arab emigration, it is true that three thousand Christians have left Jerusalem in the past four years.
"However, this is not a current phenomenon," continues Father Tournay. "Christian emigration from the Middle East has always existed, at least for the past thirty years. The Christian emigration has always been thought of as more important than the Moslem emigration. The Vatican receives its information from sources that are mainly Arab. Therefore, it is understandable how the presentation of this problem is influenced."
Another member of the priesthood, who remains anonymous also does not think that deliberate steps are being taken for the "abolition of the Christian character" of Jerusalem. "They do not disturb Jerusalem's Christian character, but they add Jewish character," he said. "The phenomenon of Christian emigration goes back many more years than the Israeli conquest."
MINIS – IN AMMAN, TOO
Israel should not be blamed for all sins. On the subject of the mini-skirt, for example, the same priest said: "People say the Israelis caused minis to be seen in East Jerusalem, but they may be seen in Amman as well."
The Archbishop Appleton also denies any "real pressure" upon Christians and he points out the economic motivation causing Christians to leave.
In the opinion of Father Jean-Marie Van Kang, from the monastery of Saint Stephen, "The extreme Arab viewpoints are not to be taken to heart. " He suggests an ideal solution, in his opinion, making Jerusalem "a free city, with its status assured by international pledges."
HIDDEN ANTI-SEMITISM
The Dominican Father Marcel Dubois, professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, firmly denies the accusations against Israel. "No one speaks of abolishing Jerusalem's Christian character. All this is false. Where were all these sensitive people when the Jordanians abolished the Jewish character of the Mount of Olives, when they destroyed the cemetery dating hundreds of years back? No one of the Christian world protested as the desecration went on before our very eyes."
"In Israel, however, opinions are voiced against the appropriation of Arab lands in East Jerusalem," says Father Dubois, who is critical of the Vatican.
"If the Church does not look at Israel in a Christian manner, if it does not recognize theologically, that this nation has a national goal that can only be fostered in Zion then it has no right to pass judgment on Israel. The Church feels a bit paralyzed because it only recognizes the existence of the wandering Jew while the Israeli state and nation have no share in its theology. There is also that hidden antisemitism exist. . . we would have more right to ask Israel to be faithful to herself, to heed the Arab problem, which is after all Israel's problem too, after we recognize Israeli's right to exist."
"The Christians are leaving Jerusalem" thus protest the Vatican and the Jordanian government once every few months. If they had only made the effort to check out the numbers of emigrating Christians in the last decade or to learn the facts from the directors of the churches themselves, who are permanently situated in Jerusalem, they would have seen reality differently.
NOT PERMANENT AND ROOTED
The emigration movement of Christian Arabs from Jerusalem to other lands did not originate after the Six Day War. The elders of Christian communities charge that the Christian population of the city has never been permanent and rooted. The reasons for that are mainly economic. The younger generation could not fit into the economic framework and therefore left the Holy City seeking new places to live. Many times it happened that at an older age, after saving up money and property or after tiring of the way of life in other countries, those of the younger generation who had left returned to their parents' homes in Jerusalem.
NO INTERFERENCE
The Fathers of the churches do not approve of comparisons made between Israeli and Jordanian authorities concerning East Jerusalem. They are careful not to refer to this subject in official talks. But in unofficial talks with Israelis, they speak of difficulties put in the way of the Christian communities during the Jordanian rule in order to limit their freedom – starting with permits for building through giving entrance permits to Christians and including setting up educational institutions.
Only in one field was liberalism shown by the Jordanian rule: they encouraged the foundation of welfare institutions by the Christian communities.
Since the unification of Jerusalem, the heads of the churches benefit from a much more liberal attitude than was prevalent during the Jordanian rule. They can come and go from Israel more easily; the Israeli Government does not interfere at all in the internal affairs of the Christian communities; they are exempted from taxes if necessary; they help them protect their holdings.
UNIFICATION OF FAMILIES
Apparently most of the Christian communities have no accurate record of births and deaths, of emigrations and visits among the members of their communities. But from the annual report of the Latin Patriarchate it appears that last year its population reached 4,000. That year there were 111 births and 34 emigrated. It can be argued that here there is no emigration in the true sense of the word, because the majority who left Jerusalem joined their children or parents who are in European countries and in the United States.
This proportion of emigrants is almost certainly the average rate of goers and comers among the Christian communities in Jerusalem. At any rate, there are no other figures. When governmental bodies sought to obtain details on the movement of emigrants from the heads of the churches, they were greeted with a shrug of the shoulders as if these facts have no significance. There were those who said that the number of the community was more or less constant.
At first Israeli officials turned to the heads of Christian communities, seeking details and explanations, whenever information was published by Vatican circles about Christian emigration from Jerusalem. Today nobody takes the trouble to verify or refute such declarations.
The first to adopt this approach were precisely the heads of the Christian communities themselves. Afterwards Israeli officials learned to do the same. Today, they all know that pronouncements and reality are not the same.
They know – although they don't say so openly – that political considerations guide the Vatican and the Jordanian rule in their declarations. Therefore, they prefer to keep their silence, as if nothing were said on a subject so well known to them.
EVANGELICAL POSITIONS – THE FUTURE OF JERUSALEM
(By Dr. W. R. White)
It is our profound conviction that Israel should have complete control of the city of Jerusalem. It is peculiarly and uniquely significant to the Jewish people as to no other people in the world. They are taking an interest in it and are proving responsible trustees as is not likely true of any other group.
The Mohammedans have their sacred city of Mecca, wholly in their hands as is proper. Although Israel wrested a part of Jerusalem by force from their possession, it was previously wrested from them by force by the same people from whom they have recently taken it.
To internationalize the city is not the solution for any.problems involved.
The Christian world is profoundly interested also in Jerusalem but in the main they prefer that it be kept in the hands of Israel. They have proved to be superior custodians of the city and its sacred places. Any problem with the Mosque of Omar and similar shrines can be remedied by the proper treaty.
INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JERUSALEM OPPOSED BY DENOMINATIONAL LEADER
(By Religious News Service, June 23, 1971)
SEATTLE (RNS). – Dr. Arnold T. Olson, president of the Evangelical Free Church of America, said here that he joins other evangelical leaders in opposing a proposal that Jerusalem become an international city.
Dr. Olson noted that since 1967 the Israeli government has shown willingness and ability to grant freedom of worship and freedom of access to the Holy Places.
The president was here for the 87th annual conference of the Evangelical Free Church, coming to Seattle directly from Jerusalem whre he was keynote speaker at a conference on Biblical prophecy.
In opposing internationalization of Jerusalem, Dr. Olson said the Israeli government had been "open" in its rule of Jerusalem. He also argued that internationalizing of cities has always failed. There are no humanitarian problems in Jerusalem and there are "signs of Israel improving the living conditions of the Arab people," he added.
A DECLARATION ON THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM
We, the undersigned Evangelical Christians, committed to the integrity of Jerusalem, the Holy City, as the birthplace of our faith, want to commend the State of Israel for the scrupulous care with which it has protected Christian places and people.
Taking note that, throughout history, Jerusalem has never been the capital of ANY people except for the Jewish people, we are struck by the fact that since the Six Day War, all people are free to worship in the place of their choice, unlike the situation that pertained during the period 1948-1967.
The unity of Jerusalem must be preserved at all costs; internationalization, an idea which has never worked in history, would not be a viable solution.
Dr. Arnold T. Olson, president of the Evangelical Free Church of America.
Dr. Harold J. Fickett, Jr., pastor of First Baptist Church of Van Nuys, Calif.
Dr. John F. Walvoord, president, Dallas Theological Seminary.
Dr. G. Douglas Young, president, American Institute of Holy Land Studies, Jerusalem.
Dr. Myron F. Boyd, member of Board of Bishops of North America, Free Methodist Church, Winona Lake, Ind.
Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, professor of History of Christian Thought, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Ill.
Jerusalem, Israel, June 17, 1971.
It should be understood that the signers speak in their own name and not necessarily represent organizations or institutions to which they are attached. Evangelical Beacon, July 27, 1971.
ROMAN CATHOLIC POSITIONS
(The Reverend Karl Rahner, Roman Catholic Theologian, September 24, 1971)
Is Jerusalem part of Christian Dogma?
Once again the United Nations Security Council debates the status of Jerusalem. Once again the City of Peace is a city of controversy. And once again Jews will wonder what Christians really think about Jewish sovereignty over the Old City for the first time since the decades following the life and death of Jesus.
In the middle ages, Christian polemicists regularly proved that the Jews had been rejected by God, by pointing to the destruction of the Temple and the passage of Jerusalem into non-Jewish hands. Many Jews, hearing in their minds the echos of those old debates and recognizing how difficult it is to uproot the stereotypes of centuries, will wonder if, somehow, those old attitudes are not still around.
The Papacy has only intensified such rumination. Last May, the official Vatican publication, "Observatore Romano," spoke of the "Judaization of Jerusalem at the expense of the non-Jewish population." Last June, the Pope spoke to the College of Cardinals about Jerusalem's "mysterious destiny" and called for the internationalization of the city. Why? Why had 20 years of Jordanian rule produced no such statement?
As a professional theologian, I felt that it might be possible to clear up one aspect of the problem: is control of Old Jerusalem a theological matter for contemporary Roman Catholicism? I therefore wrote to Fr. Karl Rahner, generally recognized as the greatest living Catholic theologian and the intellectual father of Vatican Council II. I asked him if the old notions about Jerusalem were to be found in modern Catholic literature and, more important, what his teaching on this topic was. His answer is as notable for his directness and lack of equivocation as it should be useful in clarifying the Catholic theological status of Jerusalem. And at the end of his letter, please note, he extends his discussion to the question of the status of the State of Israel as a whole. Fr. Rahner has given permission to publish his letter. The translation is by Henry Schwarzschild.
Eugene B. Borowitz:
In response to your question, I should like to make the following comments:
(1) I have never given close consideration to the problem of the renewed sovereignty of Israel over the Old City of Jerusalem. I can therefore only make a few general remarks. For the same reason, I cannot point to the literature on this subject. I assume, however, that this literature, insofar as it exists, is referred to in the "Freiburger Rundbrief," with which you are surely familiar. It may also be appropriate to refer to Msgr. Oesterreicher's commentary on the declaration of the Second Vatican Council "Nostra aetate," in the second volume of the Council Commentaries, which are part of the Lexicon of Theology and Church, in order to understand the background of this question more fully.
(2) I do not know what reasons might have prompted Pope Paul VI to support the internationalization of Jerusalem. I should have to restudy the relevant declarations, but I do not have them at hand now. I gather that you know them well. Among the reasons that are at least objectively possible I can think only of the desire for a peaceful compromise between Israel and the Arab states and the opinion that the "holy places" of Christianity could best be safeguarded in this manner. One may differ about the weightiness of these reasons, but they should be judged calmly and objectively. In any case, they do not in my opinion comprise a real theological problem.
(3) I cannot see that the return of Jerusalem to Israel constitutes a real theological problem for a Christian such that reasons of faith would compel him to oppose the return. Christians once conducted crusades out of an historically conditioned mentality which is not, however, identical with the true nature of Christianity. After the crusades, Christians accepted the domination by Mohammedan peoples and states as a fact, without being prompted by their faith to undo the fact.
I therefore do not accept the notion that Christians ought to oppose, on grounds of faith, the Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, especially since Christians are well aware of the ties by which the people of the New Covenant are spiritually connected to the Tribe of Abraham (Nostra aetate)
(4) I believe that Christian dogmatic reasons would be grounds for opposing this sovereignty only if there were a decisive objection on theological grounds to the very existence of a Jewish state (which sees itself as a political, not a theological, datum). But I am not aware of such objections or of such a theological problem that Christians have intensively considered in theological terms.
(From Sh'ma, a journal of Jewish responsibility.)
ATLANTA, September 10.– The National Coalition of American Nuns today called for continuation of Jerusalem under Israeli control. In a statement issued by the Executive Council of the 2,000 member body, the Coalition opposed "any possible internationalization of the Holy City."
The statement continued, "Jews have always been in Jerusalem. It is their spiritual home and the daily prayer of the Jewish people voices their enduring historic relation to the city. Further, Israel has rebuilt Jerusalem pouring into it millions of dollars and more especially, untold human resources. Jerusalem is now available to all faiths and never before have the holy places been so protected and maintained."
The National Coalition of American Nuns is organized to study, speak and work for social justice. Its Executive Council met in Atlanta during the Leadership meeting of Women Religious, September 5th – 10th.
TEXT OF STATEMENT ON JERUSALEM BY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL COALITION OF AMERICAN NUNS
The National Coalition of American Nuns expresses strong support for the current status of Jerusalem under Israeli control. We oppose any possible internationalization of the Holy City. Jews have always been in Jerusalem. It is their spiritual home and the daily prayer of the Jewish people voices their enduring historic relation to the city. Further, Israel has rebuilt Jerusalem pouring into it millions of dollars and more especially, untold human resources. Jerusalem is now available to all faiths and never before have the holy places been so protected and maintained.
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN STUDIES DIRECTOR ACCUSES JORDANIAN BISHOPS
(By NC News Service, Apr. 22, 1971)
SOUTH ORANGE, N.J. – Jordanian bishops grossly misrepresented Israeli plans for Jerusalem in their recent letter to Pope Paul VI. charged the director of the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies here.
Msgr. John M. Oesterreicher, who heads the institute at Seton Hall University, said he found it difficult to take the bishops' accusations seriously, but felt compelled to issue a countering statement to clarify what he called the letter's "various falsehoods."
In their March 1 letter the Jordanian bishops urged the Pontiff to oppose Israeli plans for Jerusalem. They expressed fear that the Holy City would become a Hebrew city, with free access denied to Christians and Moslems, unless action were taken to preserve "its universal character unique and sacred to all mankind."
Signing the letter were Auxiliary Bishop Nemeh Simaan of Jerusalem, who heads the Latin-rite vicariate in Amman; Melkite-rite Archbishop Saba Youwakin of Petra and Philadelphia, who also lives in Amman, and Greek Orthodox Bishop Diodoros.
The three bishops told of building plans by Israeli authorities "on the hills in the outskirts" of Jerusalem and proclaimed that such a project would radically change the complexion of the Holy City.
Msgr. Oesterreicher said that their claim is like saying that modern building plans for the suburbs of Washington, D.C., "would deprive the White House and the area around it of their historic meaning."
The monsignor said that the bishops' "notion that the buildings to be constructed in the hills of Judea would turn the Old City into a 'suffering ghetto' sounds more like a feverish expression or a propaganda device than a considered judgment."
The bishops are not content, however, "with frightening Pope Paul and the world that there will be a new stream of refugees," Msgr. Oesterreicher said, adding:
"They also want him and us to believe that the 'Hebrew Belt' will make free access to the Holy Places almost impossible. Their fears would have some semblance of rationality, if that "Hebrew Belt" was a series of military fortifications or a row of police stations, and not a scattering of apartment houses.
"Whoever sold the bishops the idea that these dwellings will stop the free flow of pilgrims must suffer from an imagination run wild. What interest could the Israelis have in drying up so formidable a source of income as pilgrimages? As a matter of fact, the (Israeli) Ministry of Tourism uses every available means to encourage them."
Msgr. Oesterreicher said that "one could simply write off the bishops' predictions as highly emotional, did they not pass over in silence the fact that access to the Holy Places was greatly restricted under Jordanian rule."
Going further on the question of free access to Holy Places, once the Israeli building program is completed, the bishops asked the Pope: "Can we remain in silence confronted with such injustices and such an abuse of power?"
Msgr. Oesterreicher said he finds such rhetoric totally unconvincing, not to say insincere,
"What I deplore most in their letter is not that the bishops are alarmists, which is bad enough, but that they pretend to sound the alarm in the name of Jesus," he added.
The bishops had written that "As Jerusalem is entirely and actually occupied by Israel, we feel that we are obliged – before God, before history, and before our conscienceto raise the voice of Christ... "
To this the monsignor responded: "May I be so bold as to remind the three bishops that Jesus, God's Word to all men, was a Jew, not a Jordanian. It is my hope, however, that in His all- embracing love, He will repeat over them the unique prayer: 'Father, forgive them; they know not what they are doing.'
PROTESTANT POSITIONS – LONG ISLAND BLACK CLERIC LAUDS ISRAEL: "HAS SOMETHING UNITED STATES LOST"
(By Charlotte Ames)
LONG ISLAND PRESS, September 24, 1971. – Israel appears to be on its way to becoming the Promised Land, says a black Long Island clergyman.
The people there "have something we in America have lost – the feeling of belonging and wanting to contribute to a great venture," is the opinion of Rev. Samuel R. Holder of Laurelton. "But we can recapture it. We must!"
How? – "First we have to conquer our fear of each other, then get to work eliminating our prejudices and then we can begin to change the face of our cities, working together to upgrade the standards of living of the less fortunate."
Rev. Holder, pastor of Dunton United Presbyterian Church in Ozone Park, is president of the Queens Interfaith Clergy Council. He was among 28 clergymen and college educators from throughout the U.S. chosen by the American-Israel Cultural Foundation for a study-tour of Israel aimed at better understanding between Christians and Jews.
He says he was unaware of any discrimination in Israel, and in fact "felt 100 per cent freer and safer than in America. There's scarcely any crime in Israel and people can safely walk the streets in the cities at night, something we here have lost the privilege of doing."
In most parts of Israel black people are a rarity, and there were times when young mothers apologized to him because their children were so curious, he being the first black man they had seen.
"I gathered that political leaders there welcomed black people but don't particularly want them living in group segregation, preferring them to be dispersed and integrated," he says. There is one community of black Jews, mainly from America, and in Haifa, he visited the International Training Center for Community Service, where some 1,000 Africans and Asians and 500 Israelis study nutrition and basic education together, the outsiders eventually returning to their homelands to teach others.
Perhaps the moment Rev. Holder feels most thrilled about was a meeting with former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. "He told us that for 3,000 years the Jewish people throughout the world had been praying for the building of the Temple and now their prayers are being answered."
"Our most moving experience," he recalls when we climbed to Masada, the mountain citadel where in 72 A.D., rather than be captured by their Roman attackers the Zealot men slew their wives and children and then each other."
The group met with the mayors of many communities – Beersheba, Nazareth, Haifa, among others; studied for ten days at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem – "Intensive studies of the development of the State of Israel, biblically and historically, up to the present and looking to the future," visited holy places dear to men of many faiths; spent a day at the Immigrants Absorption Center of Haifa. There, he says, people live for several months after arriving in Israel, are schooled in its language and customs and learn technical skills so they can step right into a job.
"At the center I met an American Jewish scientist who left the U.S. with his family because his daughter was on heroin. They are happy there, and the daughter is working and enjoying life in a kibbutz – and off heroin."
Rev. Holder says he "never appreciated this earth of ours so much as after seeing the deserts out of which these remarkable people are creating cities.
"We need to have this same kind of dedication to our country and to improving our communities. They are doing what seems totally impossible, and if we shared our goods and our talents, if each of us sought to contribute as these people do, life here would be so much more meaningful for all of us."
He is impressed with the clean cities"You don't see trash and dirt in the streets!" – and with the priority given to schools and education.
He believes that "Our society in America will become more decadent and end in total failure unless we eliminate dilapidated school buildings, poor programming and lack of good teachers in black and other minority communities.
"Children must receive the best education possible to bring out their talents and constructively build our society."
He reports the Israeli people are "constantly improving their relationships with the local Arab people and improving their economic life."
"It's really unfortunate," he says, "that there is this apparent hate by many Arab heads of State for Israel, when you consider the fantastic job they have done. I'm convinced the same thing could be done in any part of the Mideast, but only if people will learn to rid themselves of religious and racial and national bigotry.
"From what I learned from both leading Israeli politicians and Arab leaders within Israel, the State of Israel makes technical and scientific skills available to those less fortunate, regardless of religion or race.
"I believe peace can come," he concludes, "but only if both sides negotiate together."
CLERIC REPORTS ON ISRAEL
NEWARK: SUNDAY STAR-LEDGER, October 3, 1971. – Peace must be restored in the Middle East before Israel considers the return of Arab lands seized in the six-day war, according to a prominent New Jersey clergyman who toured Israel for two months.
Rev. Paul L. Stagg, general secretary of the New Jersey Council of Churches, said Israel "must always maintain a military presence in the former Arab lands, even if they are returned to the Arabs.
"I doubt, however, whether Israel would give up the Golan Heights because the kibbutz in the valley just below would be an easy target for the Arabs."
Under Israeli occupation, the Old City of Jerusaleum, where most of the religious shrines are located, is easily accessible to persons of all faiths, he said, while under Arab control it was not.
"When it was proposed in the United Nations that Jerusalem become an 'international city' the Arabs partitioned it," he said. After the implementation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration in 1948, in which Great Britain offered Palestine as a "national home for the Jewish people," the UN decided that both Arabs and Jews had an equal claim to the area.
"The Jews," he said, "accepted this decision, but the Arabs never did."
In reference to the Arab refugees who fled Israel after the war, Rev. Stagg asserted, "they fled because of Arab propaganda, not Israeli persecution.
"The Arabs in Israel are living better than before the country became a nation in 1948. They have better homes, food and education. The same Arabs who were in control of villages within the Israeli borders before the 1967 war are still in control of them today."
Israel, he believes, has no desire to be an occupying power. "The country's real desire is to affirm the lives of the Arab people within its borders as well as its own."
ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS POSITIONS
(Statement of Concerned Christians Adopted at Emergency Conference on Jerusalem and Israel)
As Christians concerned about peace and justice for all in the city of Jerusalem, we wish to take issue with recent statements in the general and church press which speak of the "Judaization" of the Holy City and the "suffocation" of its Christian and Muslim population. These statements also call for the "internationalization" of the entire city as a remedy for these alleged evils. Our purpose is to contribute to the debate provoked by these statements considerations we believe to be essential to a full and accurate perspective on these issues.
Our inquiry into the question of public housing in the Old City and environs has convinced us that the construction of these buildings is a legitimate effort on the part of the Israeli government to effectuate a renewal of certain slum areas of the City, to rehouse in new apartments Arabs from these quarters, to provide living space for a Jewish population increased by immigration, and to re-introduce a Jewish presence into the Old City from which it had been forcibly barred after the war of 1948. The development plans are in no sense designed to oust the Arabs, nor to "suffocate" the Christian and Muslim population. While we are concerned about the sacred character of the City, we believe that this housing is sufficiently removed from the holy places to avoid the change of diminishing the sanctity of the City.
We believe, further, that the claim that the Christian-Arab population is diminishing in Israel is incorrect. Since the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Christian and Muslim population of Israel has more than doubled. The trickle of Christian emigration has not affected this upward trend. In Jerusalem, the non-Jewish total (Christian and Muslim) has increased steadily in the last three years. The question of emigration should be judged in contrast with the actual exodus of many Arab Chrisitans from Arab countries, particularly from Lebanon and Egypt.
It is apparent to us that internationalization of the entire City of Jerusalem is no longer a viable solution to the problem of conserving the peace, security and sacred character of the City and its Holy places. Since both Israel and Jordan are adamantly opposed to the plan, it is unworkable.
Further, the behavior of the government of Israel with respect to the Holy places has been exemplary. It has achieved the main purpose of internationalization, which is to provide protection and free access – the chief goal of religious groups – and therefore must be considered a political rather than a religious concern. We recall with regret that no Christian bodies or national governments expressed concern about the denial of access for all Jews, or for Christians and Muslims in Israel, to their holy places during the Jordanian administration of the Old City.
The same can be said about the desecration of cemetaries and synagogues during this period.
Should Jerusalem be internationalized at this point in history? The internationalizing body (the. United Nations) now includes a large proportion of officially atheistic countries, or countries with no interest in or ties to the holy places of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
Internationalization has never worked and the world has had its fill of divided cities. Both alternatives, internationalization and division, are undesirable.
There are many other possible formulas, short of internationalization of the city, which would better serve the aim of protecting the holy places. We believe that the choice of the best method should be left to negotiations carried on at the peace table between Israel and Arab countries. At that point the Christian churches, synagogues and mosques can voice their opinions as to the particular needs of their communities and properties in the area.
We are encouraged by such creative efforts as those already initiated by Israeli officials with Christian ecumenical and Arab civic leaders for special jurisdictional arrangements over the holy places and in Arab areas of Jerusalem. On the other hand, we regret all interventions that fail to take into account the political rights and sovereignty of the State of Israel.
(The signers of this statement speak in their own name and do not necessarily represent organizations or institutions to which they are attached.)
Signatories
Rev. Karl Baehr, Garden City Community Church, Garden City, N.Y.
Mrs. Claire H. Bishop, Editor of Jesus and Israel.
Father John G. Donohue, Catholic-Jewish Relations Committee of the Archdiocese of New York.
Dr. A. Roy Eckhardt, Professor of Religion, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa.
Rev. Nancy Forsberg, The Clergy Association of Union, New Jersey.
Father Edward H. Flannery, Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
Dr. Charles Fritsch, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.
Rev. William Harter, First Presbyterian Church, Margaretville, New York.
Sister Katherine Hargrove, Manhattanville College, New York City.
Rev. Lester Kinsolving, Episcopalean Columnist, San Francisco, Calif.
Dr. Andre Lacocque, Chicago Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill.
Dr. Franklin Littell, President, Christians Concerned for Israel, Philadelphia, Pa.
Msgr. John Oesterreicher, Judeo-Christian Studies, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
Dr. Bernhard E. Olson, National Conference of Christians and Jews, New York City.
Father John T. Pawlikowski, Catholic Theological Union of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
Sister Donna Purdy, Institute of JudeoChristian Studies, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
Abbot Leo Rudloff, Benedictine Monk, Vermont.
Father John B. Sheerin, C.S.P., The Catholic World, New York City.
Dr. Elwyn Smith, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.
Sister Rose Thering, Institute of JudeoChristian Studies, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
Sister Ann Patrick Ware, Assistant Director, Committee on Faith and Order, National Council of Churches, New York City.
Dr. George Williams, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Dr. Michael Zeik, Maxymount College, New York City.
STATEMENT BY PROF. FRANKLIN LITTELL, CHAIRMAN OF "CHRISTIANS CONCERNED FOR ISRAEL" AT PRESS CONFERENCE ON JERUSALEM, NEW YORK CITY, JUNE 10, 1971
Four years ago the relationship between Christians and Jews suffered a severe shock. Just twenty-five years after the destruction of European Jewry a "Second Holocaust" was threatened: for the third time in two decades the Jews of Israel were facing a massive assault, announced on enemy radio and in battle commands as a Holy War to kill the Jews. By a providential combination of courage and fighting skill, that disaster was averted.
But when the little nation was saved, Jewish leaders realized with grave emotional and intellectual shock that with 1/3 of the world's Jewish population already murdered in Christendom another major sector might have been wiped out in a Muslim jihad without any significant action by the United Nations to prevent it. Worst of all, where some of us sat – after forty years of apparently meaningful interfaith discussion and cooperation – the crisis was met by a thunderous silence in the churches. Such was the apparent lack of concern in the Christian churches! A statement even appeared under date of 7 July 1967, in the name of the General Board of the National Council of Churches, which talked of the continuing tensions in the Middle Eeast without even mentioning any of the most important factors: 1) Christendom's guilt for the Holocaust, 2) The prostitution of Islam in the threatened crusade against the Jews, 3) The Soviet Union's complicity in the attack, through heavy financing and arming of the aggressors.
Today the public is more aware, after the show trials in Russia, of the way in which Marxist governments are tied up with political anti-Semitism. But to some of us, who are Christians – and not Marxists or Muslims – the moral insensibility and theological wrongheadedness of the churches has focused attention. Since the "Six Day War" there have been several striking developments, indicating how a growing number of people of the churches is aware that our whole understanding of the relationship of the church to the Jewish people must be changed.
There is the Wayne State University Project on the Church Struggle and the Holocaust, now going into its third year of research and writing among Christian and Jewish scholars of different academic disciplines. Men like Eberhard Bethge, William Niemoeller, Emil Fackenheim, Eli Wiesel, John Conway, Gordon Zahn, Uriel Tal, etc. are working together in this effort to master the lessons of the recent past. There is the Seminar on the Holy Land in American Thought and Literature, jointly taught by Prof. Robert Handy of Union Theological Seminary and Prof. Moshe Davis of the Jewish Theological Seminary. There is a very vigorous Working Party of 10 Catholic theologians and 10 Protestant theologians, under the aegis of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Churches, going into its third year of work; the theme – "Israel: the People, the Land, the State." Within the last six months several hundreds have joined a movement – "Christians Concerned for Israel" – which reflects a growing consensus among Christians that just as Anti-Semitism is the litmus test to identify emerging police states, so hostility to Israel is the specific sign of the rejection of Holy History by the Gentiles. For ever a century – and especially in the Left Wing and Right Wing Extremism of different parts of what was once blandly called "Christendom" – the most cruel blows borne by the Jewish people and the Church have come from renegade Jews and apostate Christians.
We might mention other signs of a recovery – the number of rabbis teaching in Catholic and Protestant seminaries and graduate schools of religion ... the plan to add a resident Jewish scholar to the staff of the Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research at Collegeville, Minnesota, and so on.... I think it is safe to say that the various Christian initiatives share certain common convictions.
(1) that the Holocaust was the major event in the recent history of Christianity – and not just a misadventure of Jews;
(2) that much Christian teaching about the Jewish people has been wrongheaded, indeed wicked, and that we must learn to think and act rightly on this front at the same time Catholics and Protestants are learning – after four centuries – to think and act as fellow-Christians;
(3) that the Church needs the Jewish people for several imperative reasons – to keep us from the "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer) which is tossed around when God's Law is not taken seriously, to keep us from anti-historical and speculative heresies, to teach us in many ways to honor the covenant of fathers and sons;
(4) that the renewal of the spiritual life of the Jewish people, so soon after Hitler's victory over European Jewry and the slumbering conscience of Christendom is irrevocably tied to the rebirth of Israel as an historical nation.
We believe that the enemies of the Jewish people – who are also the enemies of the Christian faith, although not usually recognized as such so quickly – must be confronted by confessing Christians. After Auschwitz, there is no place for balcony-sitters on this issue! The threats to Israel's existence are both overt and covert, of open attack and subtle infiltration and corruption – in the pincer play which we now know so well from studies of anti-religious policies in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union and in the attacks on Israel since 1948.
Most unhappily, church organs and agencies have not always been immune to skillful manipulation by agents of Communist and/ or Arab League propaganda – not to mention the wretched rise of fascist-type Anti-Semitism in the back woods of American church life. Recently there has been a mounting campaign to isolate Israel from friends, and to remove from her by indirect means and the pressure of public opinion what could not earlier be won by military attack.
This campaign has focussed on the issue of "internationalization" of Jerusalem and "recovery" of the Holy Places. A few days ago an Emergency Conference was held in New York, bringing together Catholics and Protestants of distinction from all over the country, and a statement was prepared for the guidance of the people of the churches. We present it to you now with no illusions as to our own infallibility, but with consciences now schooled in the certainty that in such a situation of all sins indifference and silence are the worst.
HOUSTON GROUP VOICES CHRISTIAN CONCERN FOR ISRAEL
On Wednesday, June 30, an ecumenical group met at St. Francis Episcopal Church to discuss the present urgent need for Christians to express their concern for Israel.
Recalling the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and the continuing threats to the survival of Israel, the ad hoc group decided to seek affiliation with the national organization of Christians Concerned for Israel. Organized four months ago in the eastern U.S.A., Christians Concerned now numbers 300 members under the chairmanship of Dr. Franklin H. Littell, head of the Department of Religion at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Recently an emergency meeting of Christians Concerned met in New York City, later issuing a statement in support of the reunification of Jerusalem under Israeli jurisdiction. After discussing the position taken by the national group, the Houstonia issued the following statement:
"We appreciate the recent statement of Christians Concerned for Israel, and we commend the thrust of their recent news releases. Today it is particularly imperative that Christians speak out, voicing their concern regarding the great dangers which continue to threaten the well being, even the very existence of Israel as a free, sovereign state.
"We commend Israel for having made Jerusalem available to worshippers of all faiths. Therefore, we see no religious need to internationalize the city, nor do we consider internationalization a practical solution for political difficulties.
"We are deeply afraid that this proposal to internationalize Jerusalem – with its strongly prejudicial overtones – will be used by some to obscure the primary issue, which is the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state.
"At this time, we call on all Christians in the community at large to join with us in expressing this concern. Anyone wishing to become a member of the Houston group is urged to contact Mr. Philip Libby at the local office of the National Conference of Christians and Jews." (228-5081)
The meeting was called by Sister Ann Gillen, Co-ordinator of Project Awareness, and Mr. Philip Libby of the N.C.C.J. Other members at the meeting included: Rev. Warren Dicharry, Rector of St. Mary's Seminary, already a member of the national Chrstians Concerned organization; Rev. Benedict Ashley, Research Professor at the Texas Medical Center Institute of Religion; Rev. Cal Rutherford, St. Francis Episcopal Church; Rev. Michael Falls, Palmer Memorial Church; Rev. Bryant Young, St. Stephen's Methodist Church; Rev. John Craig, Central Presbyterian Church; Dr. Lee Porter, First Baptist Church of Bellaire; and Judge Woodrow Seals, Chairman of the Board of Christian Social Concerns for the United Texas Methodist Conference.
The signers of this statement speak in their own names and do not necessarily represent the organizations or institutions to which they are attached.
CHRISTIAN PRESS REACTION MIDDLE EAST – VATICAN'S VIEW
(By Father John B. Sheerin, CSP)
CATHOLIC NORTHWEST PROGRESS, June 11, 1971.-The already complex situation in the Middle East has been further confused by a very disturbing editorial in the Osservatore Romano of March 22-23. The editorial claims that the cause of peace in the Middle East has been harmed by Israeli efforts to bring about a measure of urban renewal in Jerusalem. The editor says that this is being done "at the expense of the non-Jewish population."
Why has the Vatican daily paper chosen to stir up this controversy at this time? The precipitating cause was undoubtedly a letter sent by three Catholic bishops in Jordan urging the Pope to oppose Israeli plans to redevelop the holy city by means of highrise apartments and other new housing. "Thus, through the fanaticism of a people and its chiefs, the old Zionist dream is to be realized: to make of Jerusalem the exclusive center of the rallying of the Hebrew nation and the capital of Israel." The bishops warned that Christians would be encircled in "a suffocating ghetto" and the Christian holy places would become "museums."
I had never previously heard of bishops in one country protesting to the Pope about urban redevelopment plans in another country. Yet as I read the news dispatches about the bishops' protest, I said to myself: "Here we are again. We have been here before." During Vatican II in the 1963 session, bishops from Arab countries demanded the withdrawal of the Jewish declaration.
Notable among them were Cardinal Tappouni, Patriarch Maximos IV and Patriarch Stephen I. In the 1964 session, opposition to the Jewish text narrowed down to Cardinal Tappouni, who spoke in the name of all the bishops of Arab countries, demanding the text be dropped. In the 1965 session, (cf. Rene Laurentin's commentary on the Jewish declaration, Paulist Press), Arab diplomacy had an opportunity to intrude into the theological discussion of the term "deicide," the upshot of which was that the text was slightly modified.
More surprising than the Osservatore's (and the bishops') nonplacets on high-rise apartments in Jerusalem were the editor's remarks on the "internationalization" of the holy city. He declared that Vatican policy favors "internationalizing" Jerusalem, basing his opinion on a talk recently given by Pope Paul in St. Peter's Square. The Pope said that "We have a grave right and a grave duty" to safeguard the holy places of Palestine, the continuing Christian presence there and "the statute of Jerusalem." This statute formulated the 1947 UN plan for internationalizing the city.
I think I am safe in saying that the common impression among Catholics in recent years has been that the Vatican had abandoned "internationalization" as impracticable. On numerous occasions Pope Paul had, with seeming deliberateness, refrained from using the word "internationalization" and it is noticeable that he did not use the word in the March 14 address. Nor has he registered any protest to the effect that the Israelis have been barring access to Christians to the holy places.
What could possibly have induced the Pope to shift his position? Some say that Spain and France, being pro-Arab, have influenced the Pope to shift position. This seems most implausible as the Pope is very much aware of how American Catholics would feel about allowing Russia to get a foothold in the holy city, which would be almost inevitable under a UN plan of internationalization.
The NCC release says "Israeli government officials are increasingly worried by – and irritated at – what they see as the Vatican's developing pro-Arab, anti-Israel policy." American Jews are equally disturbed, especially in view of the extremely good relations now existing between Catholics and Jews in the US. All we can do is to let our Jewish friends know that Osservatore Romano is not an official publication of the Holy See and that we Catholics await as eagerly as Jews a clear statement of the official position of the Holy Father on "internationalization."
A CATHOLIC REVIEWPOINT
ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM
(Editorial Comments by A. E. P. Wall)
The Baltimore, Md., Catholic Review, April 16, 1971.– Jerusalem, the holy city, continues to be not only a center of struggle but an object of struggle.
Israel, which controls the city, has stirred dismay throughout much of the world because of plans to build housing units in areas captured from Jordan. The U.S. Department of State has criticized the housing plans because the status of the city remains unsettled. U Thant has charged that the housing project violates United Nations Security Council resolutions. Objections have come also from those who believe that the housing project is inappropriate in terms of the beauty, and the special character of Jerusalem.
The project is not without its critics within Israel, and it is to be hoped that the Israeli government will act swiftly to review plans that do not appear to harmonize with the unique nature of Jerusalem.
While it is not possible for outside observers generally to support a poorly-conceived housing project, it should be possible to understand Israel's feelings about its capital city. An Israeli sees no more reason to internationalize Jerusalem than to internetionalize Washington, Rome or Cairo. There are about 200,000 Jews and about 70,000 Arabs in Jerusalem.
Both L'Osservatore Romano and L'Osservatore della Domenica have recently published criticisms of Israeli positions on Jerusalem. It might be more useful to the cause of brotherhood, which is so closely related to the cause of peace, for the Vatican and Israel to exchange formal diplomatic recognition. Normal diplomatic conversations between the two could produce not merely a happier frame of mind than can result from editorial criticisms, but they could lead to a discovery of much wider areas of cooperation.
There is absolutely no reason why normal diplomatic relations, one of the marks of a civilized society, should work against the interests of Arab Christians, as some seem to fear. Quite to the contrary, those interests might be served far better.
There is today, as Prime Minister Golda Meir said earlier this month, "complete freedom of access" to all holy sites in Jerusalem for members of all religions. This was not true before the Six-Day War in 1967. As Mrs. Meir observed, the world "remained silent for 19 years, while Jordanian authorities prevented access to Jewish holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem."
It is vital that Christians ponder not only the open persecutions that have brought pain and death to Jews by the millions, but that recognition be given to the special threats and insincerities of modern times.
There is talk today about creating a United Nations force, or some other international force, to preserve the peace of the Middle East. But Israel does not need a long memory to recall that only four years ago the United Nations Emergency Force was recalled from Egyptian territory along the Israeli border the instant Egypt demanded it.
Israel has never known frontiers or friendly neighbors. History gives the Jewish people reason to be cautious about the assurances of others, and history requires Christians to help remove the cause of that caution.
Neither political fervor, economic considerations nor sectarian interest should permit words or actions that have even the appearance of prejudice or hypocrisy.
WAR, PEACE, AND RELIGION
The Baltimore, Md., Catholic Review, April 16, 1971.-Emotions run high, and so do anxieties in the Middle East today. It is essential that the Church stand well above nationalistic influences in its support of peace with justice.
Clergymen in many parts of the world have prayed for the success of the armies of their homelands. During World War II, prayers were offered in Germany for an Axis victory even while they were being offered in Britain for an Allied victory.
It is possible for a priest, a bishop, a minister, a rabbi, to identify so strongly with a patriotic cause that he feels free to seek the institutional backing of his religion.
Three bishops in Jordan have appealed to Pope Paul VI to take a position on the Jerusalem question that would, in fact, favor Jordan. The three are Auxiliary Bishop Nemeh Simaan of Jerusalem, who heads the Latin rite vicariate in Amman; Melkite rite Archbishop Sabe Youwakim of Petra and Filadelfia, who also lives in Amman; and Greek Orthodox Bishop Diodoros.
In voicing their criticism of an Israeli housing plan for Jerusalem (see our editorial above) the three bishops wrote these unyielding words to the Pope:
"Thus, through the fanaticism of a people and of its chiefs, the old Zionist dream is to be realized: to make of Jerusalem the exclusive center of the rallying of the Hebrew nation and the capital of Israel."
The bishops went on to speak of a "Hebrew belt" and to warn that Christians would be encircled in a "suffocating ghetto," terms that hardly point the way to brotherhood. There is little doubt that the three bishops are convinced that they are serving broad and lasting interests in their appeal to the Pope. In fact, however, they make it more awkward for the Holy See to seek peaceful solutions in a dispassionate and impartial way.
[From the Boston Pilot, May 1, 1971]
To the Editor:
Having just returned from a three-week visit in Israel, I am compelled by what I saw and heard there to take very strong exception to most if not all, of what Rev. Joseph L. Ryan has to say on page 12 of the April 24 issue of the Pilot.
The article fails substantially to prove anything at all about Israel bias – it does perambulate from one reference to another and from one quotation to another, but there is, therein, no essentially honest facts from which one can conclude that "the Israeli government is engaged in discrimination and injustice against Moslems and Christians."
Father Ryan's use of the syllogism is very badly handled in the conclusions he reaches from the meeting of Pope Paul and Marshal Tito in spite of the fact that we of long memory can quite agree that the latter is an authority on aggression. We, of Roman Catholic persuasion, have come to expect much better rhetoric from Jesuits, but, frankly, Father Ryan's article is very bad propaganda and I wonder to what degree his views are slanted by his former academic position at Al-Hikma University in Baghdad.
A Spanish Catholic guide in Nazareth paid tribute to the efforts of the Israeli government in their use of world-wide contributions for purposes of remodeling the Church of Annunciation there. It appears that the government is administrating the archaeological excavations beneath the edifice as well as supervising the magnificent mosaic art in the Church of the proper three levels above.
Were that things were going so well in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, where for many decades, I understand, Christian denominations have been unable to get together on necessary shoring of the structure.
It was a distinctly rewarding religious experience to have been able to attend the High Mass at the Holy Sepulcher on Palm Sunday. Isn't it true that during Jordan's occupation of Jerusalem, I would not have been permitted to do so? Isn't it true that Christians had access to this holy place only at Christmas time? And in addition, also, in the area of religious tolerance, isn't it true that Arabs in Israel are not even now permitted to pilgrimage to Mecca? The restriction is not the Israeli government's. What is true is that the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Israel could hardly be more harassed by the Israeli government than he was by Coptic Egyptian Christians on Palm Sunday morning. The Coptic's Services to the rear of the tomb of Christ were conducted concurrently with ours and the cacophony, however devout, was certainly, if not deliberately, an interruption of the Latinium ritual
I have many reservations about Christian shrines in the Holy Land. I very much wish that I did not see so many things that I did see. It is imperative on Christians to get their own house in order. The threat is in no way from the Israeli government, the threat, rather is from within. But I want to add and very strongly, that the Roman Catholic administration of religious matters here is in the very good hands of Franciscan monks and with their performance, I have no argument whatsoever.
The Judaization of the Holy City of Jerusalem is becoming popular phraseology and Father Ryan impels himself to its use. The terminology refers to no new plague among the species. I feel it refers to the new housing units in E. Jerusalem, required by the expansion in the population of Jerusalem.
These new apartment houses are in good taste, made of Jerusalem stone and modern in their functional usefulness. They are on the outskirts of the city, nowhere in juxtaposition to the Holy City, and are of concerned interest to the growth and development of the city. The new housing is consistent architecturally With the new Hebrew University, the new government center and the Knesset (the Israeli House of Parliament). All of this new construction is merely the reflection of a new vitality in the Middle East – a vitality which may very well lift not only Israel but its neighbors as well into a new era of social and economic tranquility. Let us Christians prayerfully hope that this is so. The Jews against great odds and with the sweat of their brow have built what they have and deserve no less.
LOUIS MURRAY.
ASHLAND.