Where The Pope Missed An Opening

(CBS)  This column was written by Mary C. Boys, Skinner and McAlpin Professor of Practical Theology at Union Theological Seminary

---

The shadows of history-many of them ominous-overlay Pope Benedict XVI's journey to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Territories this week. History is always on the table, given the animosity and violence that have too often characterized the Catholic Church's relationship with Jews and Muslims. Against the backdrop of the complex politics of the Middle East, this papal trip has involved monumental challenges.

But another shadow trails this pope: his predecessor, John Paul II, who went to Israel in March 2003. Like Benedict, he gave an address in the Hall of Remembrance at Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to victims of the Holocaust. Place their remarks side-by-side, or compare the videos: Benedict's speech is dispassionate and detached, his predecessor's personal, even visceral.

The charisma of John Paul eclipsed the professorial Benedict. Numerous commentators have weighed in on Pope Benedict's May 11 speech at Yad Vashem, criticizing his cerebral tone, and taking him to task for what they judge he should have done differently: condemn antisemitism (though he had denounced it on numerous occasions and reiterated the denunciation in his farewell speech at Ben Gurion Airport on May 15), speak more candidly as a German on whose home soil Nazism had arisen, and confess the church's complicity in the Holocaust. Many judged that he had let a teachable moment dissipate.

I share this disappointment, even as am I deeply sympathetic for this 82-year old pope as he has traveled a terrain so filled with religious, political and cultural landmines. His previous interreligious flare-ups suggest that he is not at ease in the interreligious sphere.

How to account for this uneasiness? Many will point to his traditional theological views as evident in the declaration Dominus Iesus, promulgated under his signature in 2000. Its sub-title, "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," provides a clue to its thesis and tone. Others suggest that his personal reserve disadvantages him on the world stage, especially in the shadow of John Paul II.

All this may be true. To add my own conjecture: It is probable that Benedict would have learned relatively little about other religions in his theological studies. In the course of studying theology, Benedict would have absorbed understandings about Judaism, because one cannot comprehend Christianity without knowledge of Judaism. Yet in his years as a seminarian and graduate student-the late 1940s and early 1950s--Christian scholarship on Judaism was seriously flawed. The past 40 years, thankfully, have witnessed significant advances in this scholarship, but Benedict does not appear to be drawn to it.

Another speculation: It is likely that he has never had a deep friendship with a person from another faith. Certainly, as one of the most powerful figures in the Catholic Church, including 24 years as the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before his election to the papacy in April 2005, he would have had occasion to meet with leaders of other religious traditions. But the exchange of formalities between high-ranking officials does not constitute dialogue, which requires sustained exchange and trust. And it seems improbable that he has ever lingered late over a Shabbat dinner with Jewish friends or studied texts with them. Or, as did Pope John Paul II, mourn the loss of his Jewish classmates in Wadowice, Poland, murdered by the Nazis.

I have often thought that John Paul's childhood friendships with Jews, and his long friendship with Jerzy Kluger, were vital to his sensitivity to Jewish concerns. Recently, a colleague mentioned that while John Paul had been so impressive on the interreligious front during his trip to Israel in 2003, he had been less so during a trip to India in 1999. One explanation: he had no Hindu friends, and thus little entrée into Hinduism.

I hope Benedict's successor will be learned about other religious traditions. Even more, I hope he will have made friendships across religious boundaries.

By Mary Boys
Special to CBSNews.com

[Kinghawke]

I agree that religion is pointless, because anything outside of the Inspired, Unerring Word of God is work of man. I think the author of this article has gotten the pope pegged correctly. this is just the latest, out of so many popes, that are disappointments. The Popes throughout history have had wives, were children, have committed gross immoral sin, and have excommunicated EACH OTHER!! their doctrines contradict each other.

the funny thing is, no matter who I ask or where I look, I cannot find the Qualifications for being Pope. it would seem that anyone can be pope, which would explain the long line of disappointing Men who claim to be popes and men of God.

[naj1953]

Religion has lied to us forever...read the book on line called "END OF TIMES"..by Ronald Weinland. Its free.

[spiritwalk]

John Paul II used to get up in front of women and call himself "The Feminist Pope", which goes to show that he was just another politician playing to whatever crowd he was addressing.

If Benedict's tone was lack luster it should not be seen as a lack of charisma, but a sign of some political savy. Any speech made by an outsider in Israel is going to offend someone.

If any prominent figure goes there they should just smile benignly and wave and get off the stage. Once they open their mouths they are going to start a firestorm with one camp or another.

If the worst that is being said about him is that he was cerebal his trip was a major victory

[U-R-So-Wrong]

Where the leader of the Catholic Church may have no involvement in the theology of other faiths, he certainly does have influence over the one-sixth of the world's population who are Church members. The theology of the Church has also influenced secular politics and legal opinion for almost two thousand years, sometimes to the extreme discomfort of non-Church members. As the oldest Pope in recent centuries, the current Pope is well-aware of how church tradition influenced 20th Century politics and how the history of WW2 would have been different if church history had also been different.

This Pope therefore has a special underst

[U-R-So-Wrong]

This Pope therefore has a special understanding of how European politics (and the politics of the Near East shaped by European politics during the 1920s 1930s and 1940s) is still with us and hopefully he understands how these matters should not be made worse.

[Kinghawke]

"Special understanding"? what is that supposed to mean? what the pope sas goes, and everything else is apparently a lie, and history and doctrine of the Catholic church says that the Pope is accountable to no man and only God. so why do people need to defend his "special" actions?

[rheola-2009]

Pope was responsible for World War 1??!!!

This is utter garbage.
Find something else to do with your spare time

Posted by soldat44 at 5:03 AM : May 16, 2009

Can't you read, go back and have another look at what I said, which was.

"I am not saying he was responsible in any way for WW1"

I suggest you find something else to do with your spare time, or read more than just the Catholic church's biased propaganda.
And whist doing so, have a look at the Vatican's part in ensuring their Nazi friends were able to escape via the Vatican organized "Rat line"

Also have a look at Cardinal Montini's [later Pope Paul] support for the Ante Pavelic's Ustashi government of Croatia, whose exploits against humanity, made the Nazi's attrocities appear minimal by comparison, and his part in seeting up the escape route for the Nazi war criminal murderer's.

[Slrman-21001573651763300012869]

The catholic church and all religions are becoming increasingly irrelevant in a world where truth and logic are freeing more and more people from the yoke of religion.

Instead of focusing on religious differences, people can start working together to build a world based upon facts and reality instead of a system designed to allow a small group of egotists to control the thoughts and actions of the rest.

[smc021-2009]

I heard the Pope's speech and it was exactly the opposite of what you describe how do people like you get your totally absurd comments in the media.Your comments are complete nonsense. You don't know your history and you are not describing the facts at all.

[armyoftwelve]

Germany in the 1930s and 40s was less than 40% Roman Catholic. Instead of blaming Pope Pius critics on this page should question why largely PROTESTANT Germany would put the nazis in power and allow the holocaust to happen........

I question the qualifications of the writer of this column, who does she think she is that she can properly evaluate the effect of Pope Benedict's visit? More important, why does CBS allow to waste the ink??

[rheola-2009]

He and his Pacelli family where extremely anti semetic

Apologies, should be "were"

[rheola-2009]

Posted by soldat44 at 5:01 PM : May 15, 2009

I have, and have also read the Catholic church's attempts to put a positive spin on what in reality was his inaction as he stood by and raised only very feeble protests, in order that he not offend Hitler, Pius X11 appears to have decided at that stage, Germany would win the war, and he was positioning himself to place the Catholic church in the best possible position in such a case.

He and his Pacelli family where extremely anti semetic.

Further you may care to have a look into his stirring the problems between Serbia and the Austro Hungarians, immediately prior to the beginning of WW1.
I am not saying he was responsible in any way for WW1. however he was partially responsible for the differences that ultimately led to that war, as he played one off against the other, to gain an advantage for the Catholic church.