Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
It is moreover important to state that we are not in some sort of 'vacum' here, members of the 'Church teaching' have in fact made statements about Vatican 2 clearly stating that it represented a break with the past and a change with from pre conciliar teachings, for example:

Quote: Licheri: "In your opinion, did the Council give its beneficial fruits in Europe also?"

Koenig: "Yes, absolutely, also in Europe, but here many conciliar documents didn't leave the shelves. For instance, there is a lot of talk about liturgy, as if it were the sole problem that the Council faced. Further, people give too much importance to the fringes [the radicals] that tried to push ahead, and forget the authentic progress Vatican II produced. In the Church this progress took place primarily through the acknowledgment of the positive aspects of history, the sciences, and the arts - in short, those human categories that less than 100 years earlier the Syllabus had rejected and only 48 years before [the Encyclical] Pascendi had again condemned.

"Why, however, should we fear a 'pre' and 'post' Vatican II or completely reject the latter as disastrous when historically we should admit the opposite, as Karl Rahner had the opportunity to affirm? He said: 'The Church was renewed at this Council because it became an universal Church, and as such it sent the world a message that, although always the message of Jesus, today is proclaimed more completely and courageously than before.'"
(Chiesa dove vai? Gianni Licheri interroga il Cardinale Franz Koenig, Rome: Borla, 1985 pp. 103-104).

On the Catholic side, the Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on the relationship of the church to the non–Christian religions, “Nostra aetate”, can be considered the beginning of a systematic dialogue with the Jews. Still today it is considered the “foundation document” and the “Magna Charta” of the dialogue of the Roman Catholic Church with Judaism, so my tour d’horizon of the Jewish–Catholic conversation must begin there. It did not develop in a vacuum, since on the Christian side there had already been approaches to Judaism both within and outside the Catholic Church before the Council. But after the unprecedented crime of the Shoah above all, an effort was made in the post–War period towards a theologically reflected re–definition of the relationship with Judaism. Following the mass murder of the European Jews planned and executed by the National Socialists with industrial perfection, a profound examination of conscience was initiated about how such a barbaric scenario was possible in the Christian–oriented West. Must we assume that anti–Jewish tendencies present within Christianity for centuries were complicit in the anti–Semitism of the Nazis, racially motivated and led astray by a godless and neo–pagan ideology, or simply allowing it to run its course? Among Christians too there were both perpetrators and victims; but the broad masses surely consisted of passive spectators who kept their eyes closed in the face of this brutal reality. The Shoah therefore became a question and an accusation against Christianity: Why did Christian resistance against the boundless brutality of the Nazi crimes not demonstrate that measure and that clarity which one should rightfully have expected? Have Christians and Jews today the will and the strength for conciliation and reconciliation on the common foundation of faith in the one and only God of Israel? What significance does Judaism have in the future for churches and ecclesial communities, and in what theological relationship do we stand today in connection with Judaism?
Soon after the end of the Second World War, the Christian side confronted the phenomenon of anti–Semitism at the International Emergency Conference on Anti–Semitism which took place at Seelisberg from 30 July to 5 August 1947. About 65 persons, Jews and Christians from various denominations, met for wide–ranging reflection on how anti–Semitism could be eradicated at its roots. The meeting at Seelisberg aimed at laying a new foundation for the dialogue between Jews and Christians, and giving a stimulus towards mutual understanding. The perspectives which have become known as the “Ten Points of Seelisberg” have over time become path–breaking, and in one way or another found their way into the Council declaration “Nostra aetate”, even though in this text a decidedly theological framework was given to the relationship with Judaism. This declaration in fact begins with a reflection on the mystery of the church and a reminder of the deep bond which links the people of the New Covenant with the tribe of Abraham in a spiritual way. “Nostra aetate” and the “Ten Points of Seelisberg” both emphasise that the disdain, disparagement and contempt of Judaism must be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Jewish roots of Christianity are explicitly given prominence. At the same time the two declarations converge – each naturally in a different way – in rejecting the accusation which has unfortunately survived over centuries in various places, that the Jews were “deicides”.In the Christian sphere, coming to terms with the Shoah is certainly one of the major motivations leading to the drafting of “Nostra aetate”. But other reasons can surely also be identified: Within Catholic theology following the appearance of the encyclical “Divino afflante spiritu” by Pope Pius XII in 1943, biblical studies were opened up – though with cautious beginners’ steps – to historical–critical biblical interpretation, which implies that one began to read the biblical texts in their historic context and within the religious traditions prevailing in their time. This process ultimately found its doctrinal expression in the Conciliar decree on divine revelation “Dei verbum”, or more precisely in the instruction that the exegete should carefully research what the authors of the biblical texts really intended to say: “Those who search out the intentions of the sacred writers must among other things have regard for literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry or some other form of speech.” The precise observation of historical religious traditions reflected in the texts of sacred scripture had as a consequence that the figure of Jesus of Nazareth was located ever more clearly within the Judaism of his time. In this way the New Testament was placed entirely within the framework of Jewish traditions, and Jesus was perceived as a Jew of his time who felt an obligation to these traditions. This view also found its way into the Council declaration “Nostra aetate”, when it states with reference to the Letter to the Romans (9:5), that “Jesus stems according to the flesh from the people of Israel, and the church recalls the fact that the apostles, her foundation stones and pillars, sprang from the Jewish people, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ to the world.” Since “Nostra aetate” it has therefore become part of the cantus firmus of Jewish–Christian dialogue to call to mind and to emphasise the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. During his visit to the Roman synagogue on 13 April 1986 Pope John Paul II expressed this in the vivid and impressive words: “The Jewish religion is not something ‘extrinsic’ to us but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism we therefore have a relationship we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and in a certain way it could be said, our elder brothers.”
However, it was not only theological insights which led the Christian side to seek theoretical and practical rapprochement with Judaism. In fact, political and pragmatic reasons also played a not inconsequential role in this. Since the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Catholic Church sees itself confronted in the Holy Land with the reality that it has to develop its pastoral life within a state which decidedly understands itself as Jewish. Israel is the only land in the world with a majority Jewish population, and for that reason alone the Christians living there must necessarily engage in dialogue with them. In this regard the Holy See has consistently pursued two goals, that is enabling on the one hand unhindered pastoral activity of the Catholic congregations in the Holy Land, and on the other, free access to the sacred sites of Christians for Christian pilgrims. That requires in the first instance political dialogue with the ruling executive of the State of Israel, which from the Jewish perspective must naturally always be embedded in a dialogue with the religious authorities of Judaism. Christians seem to be rather inclined to differentiate and delimit political and religious affairs from one another, while Judaism strives to converge and integrate the two dimensions.Whatever motives and factors may have individually led to the drafting of “Nostra aetate”, the declaration remains the crucial compass of all endeavours towards Jewish–Catholic dialogue, and after 47 years we can claim with gratitude that this theological re–definition of the relationship with Judaism has directly brought forth rich fruits throughout its reception history. It seems that as far as content is concerned the Council fathers at that time took into consideration almost everything which has since proved to be significant in the history of the dialogue. On the Jewish side it is particularly positively emphasised that the Conciliar Declaration took up an unambiguous position against every form of anti–Semitism. It is not least on that basis that the Jews are and remain borne up by the hope that they can rest assured that in the Catholic Church they have a reliable ally in the struggle against anti–Semitism.
With regard to the reception history of Conciliar documents, one can without doubt dare to assert that “Nostra aetate” is to be reckoned among those Council texts which have in a convincing manner been able to effect a fundamental re–orientation of the Catholic Church following the Council. This of course only becomes clear to us when we consider that previously there was in part a great reluctance regarding contacts between Jews and Catholics, arising in part from the history of Christianity with its discrimination against Jews extending even to forced conversions. The fundamental principle of respect for Judaism expressed in “Nostra aetate” has over the course of recent decades made it possible for groups who initially confronted one another with scepticism to step by step become reliable partners and even good friends, capable of coping with crises together and overcoming conflicts positively.

Quote: WASHINGTON (CNS) -- One of the final documents approved by the Second Vatican Council was perhaps its most controversial text, the Declaration on Religious Freedom, which catapulted Catholicism into the modern world of church-state relations.

It set the foundations for church dealings with secular, religiously pluralistic Western democracies and for Pope John Paul II's ringing denunciations of church persecution in communist-ruled countries.

The declaration, "Dignitatis Humanae," also lent credibility to the council's call for ecumenical dialogue and dialogue with non-Christian believers.

In the process, it rehabilitated the declaration's main drafter, Father John Courtney Murray, a U.S. Jesuit who in the 1950s was barred by the Vatican from writing on church-state relations, especially on efforts to reconcile Catholicism with U.S.-style separation of church and state. The priest eventually was invited to joint the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, the Vatican agency that drafted the document.

The Declaration on Religious Freedom stated that, because of human dignity, each person had the civil right to religious liberty and to practice religious belief in community with others. This was a sharp departure from centuries of church teaching that complete religious freedom belonged only to the Catholic Church as an institution because it contained the fullness of divine truth.

In a commentary after the council, Father Murray noted the implications of the declaration's groundbreaking stance.

"The church does not deal with the secular order in terms of a double standard -- freedom for the church when Catholics are a minority, privilege for the church and intolerance for others when Catholics are a majority," said his 1966 commentary, published a year before his death.

"The declaration has opened the way toward new confidence in ecumenical relations and a new straightforwardness in relationships between the church and the world," Father Murray wrote.

The declaration said that "the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself." This freedom must be recognized and protected by nations as a civil right because the exercise of religious freedom requires "immunity from external coercion," it said.

"The right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking truth and adhering to it," said the declaration.

It was approved by a vote of 2,308-70 Dec. 7, 1965, the last day votes were taken and the day before the council ended.

But the approval came after "vehement debate" with strong opposition from many Vatican officials and bishops from strongly Catholic countries such as Spain and Italy, where Catholicism was the state religion, said Gregory Baum, an expert at the council for the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The secretariat drafted the religious freedom document because of its significance for ecumenism. At the time, Baum was an Augustinian priest.

"The Catholic Church had condemned religious freedom in the 19th century," said Baum, now a retired religious studies professor at McGill University, Montreal.

Opponents of the declaration "didn't want to admit that the church was wrong," he said.

The previous position was that "truth has all the rights and error has no rights," said Baum.

In practice this meant that because they were following an erroneous religion, non-Catholics had no right to religious freedom and at best could be tolerated in society, he said.

"But this is nonsense," said Baum. "Truth is an abstract concept. People have rights."

Baum noted that the declaration caused the Vatican to revise its treaties with many heavily Catholic countries to remove Catholicism as the state religion.

Opponents of the declaration argued that by accepting the principle of religious freedom the church would be contradicting itself. This view was counter to the view of other theologians, such as Father Murray, that church teachings can evolve based on changing circumstances, a process called "development of doctrine."

Father Murray's 1966 commentary said that resistance to development of doctrine was behind much of the opposition.

"The notion of development, not the notion of religious freedom, was the real sticking point for many of those who opposed the declaration even to the end," wrote Father Murray.

When the declaration was finally approved, it also included a confession of past church transgressions against religious freedom.

"Although in the life of the people of God ... there has at times appeared a form of behavior which was hardly in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel and was even opposed to it, it has always remained the teaching of the church that no one is to be coerced into believing," said the declaration.

This confession was suggested by Cardinal Josef Beran of Prague in the then communist-ruled Czechoslovakia. Noting the burning of heretics and the forced conversions to Catholicism in his country's history, Cardinal Beran asked that the council approve the declaration "in a spirit of atonement for past sins."

Cardinal Beran and other council fathers from communist-ruled countries joined the U.S. bishops as strong supporters of the declaration. Bishops behind the Iron Curtain saw it as necessary to preserve some semblance of church life in their homelands because the declaration did more than establish the principle of religious freedom: It also was a strong call for church independence from the state and for protections against state encroachment against organized religion.

"If it (civil authority) presumes to control or restrict religious activity, it must be said to have exceeded the limits of its power," the declaration said.

Among the declaration's Soviet-bloc supporters was Archbishop Karol Wojtyla of Krakow, Poland, elected Pope John Paul II in 1978. On the council floor in 1965, the 45-year-old archbishop argued that no state has the power to dominate religion.

Archbishop Wojtyla was "keen on the document" and it "converted him to human rights," said Baum. "He became a champion of human rights around the world -- not just religious rights -- based on the human dignity of the person."

There have been over the decades and in facts till are many in Rome and all over the world who have stated quite clearly that Vatican 2 was a break and even a rejection of previous church teaching.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching - by TrentCath - 08-17-2012, 02:27 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)