|
My father is a
contrarian, always has been. Family lore has it that my grandmother assured him
repeatedly that he would be the end of her. Such was the power of Jewish guilt
that when my grandmother finally died, dad, by then well into his thirties,
believed he was responsible. His chutzpah, however, had little to do with the
regular beatings he received at school. The pummeling was usually accompanied by
the "Christ killer" accusation. I suspect that similar experiences
explain why many Jews watched in horror as Father Peter Gumpel, in an interview
with the CBC TV, revived this anti-Semitic calumny.
The German Jesuit
priest said this: "It is a fact that the Jews have killed Christ".
"This is an undeniable historical fact." Father Gumpel proceeded to
support his statement with hearsay allegedly uttered by a "Jewish
colleague," who had readily accepted culpability for deicide, or so Father
Gumpel's say-so goes. True, it is almost Easter time. And Easter is historically
notorious for inspiring anti-Jewish sentiments. We Jews are long overdue for a
little pogrom or blood libel. My visions of Cossacks in 4X4s roaring into Jewish
neighborhoods, searching for evidence of the human blood we use for our upcoming
Passover rituals, soon gave way to a profound sadness; a sadness for Pope John
Paul II.
With his 1998
encyclical, Pope John Paul sounded a lone voice for "Faith and Reason"
in the postmodern religious wilderness. Who else has spoken with unhectoring
clarity about the errors of relativism in modern thought? Who other than Pope
John Paul has pointed out how "a legitimate plurality of positions has
yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism"? And who among men of cloth has
had the intellectual alacrity to say that inherent in the error of relativism is
a rejection of the search for truth, and with it reason. For if we accept that
all positions are equal and no one position better than the other, as we do
these days, we have forfeited our ability to discern, and forthwith our
Judeo-Christian heritage.
Pope John Paul's
philosophical integrity was reiterated this month in another profundity entitled
Memory and Reconciliation: the Church and the faults of the past in which
he endorses the Jewish concept of teshuva (repentance), and offers an apology
for "the hostility or indifference of numerous Christians towards
Jews." This, he concedes "is a sad historical fact." Neither does
he shy away from asking "whether the Nazi persecution of Jews was not made
easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and
hearts."
An issue that segues
into the conduct of Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust, and his silence in the
face of Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. It so happens that
Father Peter Gumpel has been "designated by the Vatican to oversee the
canonization of Pope Pius XII," and has stated categorically that Pius is
deserving of beatification. As emphatic as Gumpel is about Pope Pius's holiness,
he is able to offer only the-dog-ate-my-homework type excuses for this Pope's
deafening silence during the Holocaust, or for Pius's request that the
liberating allied forces refrain from sending black soldiers to Rome as he
feared they would rape Italian women.
It certainly is
illuminating that the very priest who will recommend the beatification of Pope
Pius XII is also the church official to resurrect the killers-of-Christ
accusation. As a historian, Father Gumpel should have been aware of the
35-year-old Nostra Aetate, a document issued by the Church that expressly
rejects as a cardinal error the depiction of Jews as Christ killers. "What
happened in His passion," it reads, "cannot be charged against all the
Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."
Ironically, the
collective apology extended by the Pope is as incongruous as the collective
blame apportioned by Father Gumpel. Can one apologize on behalf of a
transgressor? By extension, can we forgive on behalf of the dead? Or can we
blame an entire people for the deeds of few? Pope John Paul does not attempt to
fudge these issues. He has stated clearly that "sin is always
personal." Hence it is the sinner who is culpable for wrongdoing, and to
ascribe guilt beyond those responsible for the deeds is impossible.
Aware as he is of the
pitfalls of an apology by proxy, the Pope has nonetheless issued one as an act
of goodwill. Inspired by little grace, on the other hand, Father Gumpel has
continued a tradition that has wreaked nothing but pestilence and persecution.
He has also undermined a truly magnificent man.
©2000 By Ilana
Mercer,
The
Calgary Herald,
March 23
|