The agreement signed December 30th, 1993, between the Vatican and
the State of Israel has been very positively received by the
majority of public opinion, both Jewish and Christian, in Israel
and around the world. The agreement came as a long awaited
response, yet it is striking that very often the reasons for the
affirmative reaction to it are far from being identical.
Some would see in it merely a strictly political agreement,
restricted to legal aspects pertaining to two state
administrations. Others, more enthusiastic and optimistic, would be
tempted to grant this document a theological dimension.
These different viewpoints reflect the singular character of this
agreement: neither strictly political nor strictly religious, but
at one and the same time ¬both. It is because of the
particular identity of the interlocutors that the agreement is
indeed so rich in theological significance.
We have before us an agreement between two states, the Vatican
State and the State of Israel. But who could deny the fact that
both parties represent, each in its own way, a reality beyond
itself? Through an encounter which, at first sight, is only
political, in the last instance we have recognition between two
spiritual identities. When they come face to face, features on both
sides appear as revealed in a particular light of likeness.
It is obvious that the Vatican is not a state like others. The
authority of the Holy See, of which it is the highest instance, is
that of the Pastor of the Church, a spiritual community. In the
eyes of faith, this is how the reality is reflected. However, it is
equally true that neither is Israel a state as any other. Its
existence implies other elements than those of political reality.
This is what has to be stressed in order to understand the
singularity of the agreement of December 30th.
I often have to give an account of this complex situation to
friends, pilgrims or tourists, visiting us in Israel. They are
puzzled by the particular character of the relations between the
religious and national dimensions of Jewish identity in general,
and Israeli Jewish identity in particular. How can one understand
from outside an existential situation undoubtedly unique and
incommunicable? To help them out, I invite them at once to accept
this fundamental paradox: when we say Jew, Judaism and Israel, we
say the same thing, and at the same time not the same thing. The
Jews as a people, Judaism as a religious tradition, Israel as a
political state, are different dimensions of one single reality.
Each one points out a singular aspect but, paradoxically, it is
only in reference to the other two that one can grasp an
understanding of its meaning. What is disconcerting for the
exterior observer is the extreme variety of the ways in which these
dimensions can interact. In Israel, there are religious and
non-religious Jews. In Paris or in Brooklyn there are Jewish people
who are not Israelis. In Jerusalem, there are religious Jews who
declare themselves as anti-Zionists. And yet all of them are Jews!
Moreover, however they express themselves as Jews, they all refer
to Jerusalem and to the Land of Israel as the mysterious pole of
their identity.
To provide an explanation of the original complexity of Jewish
identity, I propose to use the words formerly used by Jacques
Maritain, the great Catholic philosopher, in the title of one of
his major books. Maritain has written courageously and
authentically about the Jewish destiny and the mystery of Israel,
but the book I am referring to does not deal with Judaism. It is a
treatise of epistemology on "the degrees of knowledge." The exact
title was: "Distinguish in Order to Unite." Those are the terms I
propose to use in order to give an account of the complexity of
Jewish identity, particularly when we speak of the situation in
Israel. It seems to me indeed that the golden rule to comprehend
these three terms: Jew, Judaism, Israel, consists of distinguishing
without disuniting, and in uniting without confusing, these three
dimensions which are at the same time different and
inseparable.
To grasp and to admit this original complexity, will lead us to a
real understanding of the singular significance of the agreement
signed on December 30th. As it is important to distinguish without
separating and to unite without confusing, the three terms Jew,
Judaism and Israel - so must we apply the same rule to the three
types of relations resulting from this trilogy: between Jews and
Christians on the historical and sociological level, between
Judaism and Christianity on the level of theological reflection,
between the State of Israel and the Vatican on the diplomatic and
political register. These are also similar and different, taking
place at different levels and within different perspectives, but
they are mutually connected within the unity of a complex
existential reality.
It is this complexity which brought many interpreters to stumble,
wavering between two extremes. Some emphasize the strictly
political aspect, others insist upon the theological implications.
It is a mistake to give either to one or to the other
interpretation, an exclusive significance. The document is not
indeed, as some concluded too hastily, a theological document
justifying the respective positions of two religious traditions.
And yet we cannot deny that in the realities which are involved in
the text of this agreement, there is much more than simple
political decisions.
Unlike so many Concordats between the Catholic Church and nations
in the world, the agreement between the Vatican and Israel embodies
a unique significance. Its originality consists in this fact that
it states the conditions for the meeting and mutual recognition of
two personalities, two identities, two religious traditions, in
brief two theological realities, both of which define themselves
through their relation to the same God and refer to the same Book.
In this respect the document comprises a religious dimension and
connotes a theological signification.
To be convinced about this, it is sufficient to consider the
history of the relations between Jews and Christians, as they have
developed since the Vatican Council. The agreement signed on 30
December 1993 is, on the level of diplomacy and law, the result of
a long ripening process which was made possible by the declaration
Nostra Aetate. Indeed, the State of Israel is not mentioned in the
texts of the Council. Debating about the attitude of the Church
towards the Jews, the Council fathers aimed not to make allusions
which could be taken as a political stance. The complexity of the
situation in the Middle East and, it must be said, certain
diplomatic pressures on the part of Arab governments, together with
the opposition of some traditional circles, paralyzed to a certain
extent the theological development desired by the majority of the
Council members. This is the reason why some have been
disappointed. Minds and hearts were not yet ready for such
aggionamento. And yet, a theological principle was laid down whose
implementation would bring a radical change in the Christian
outlook on Jewish reality: "Examining the mystery of the Church,
the Council recalls the spiritual link which binds the people of
the New Covenant with Abraham's stock. The Church of Christ, truly,
recognizes that the beginnings of her faith and her election are to
be found, according to the divine mystery of salvation, in the
Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets." In other words, the Church
finds its roots and sources in the vocation of Israel. As Pope John
Paul II will express it later, they both "meet together on the very
level of their identities." This solemn declaration of awareness
expresses the principle of an irreversible process. When we read,
document after document, declarations of the Holy See addresses,
the texts of the Church, from 1965 to the agreement of December
1993, we perceive, in spite of the apparent slowness, an undeniable
progress, as much in the contents as in the approach.
Already on the eve of Pessah 1973, the commission of the French
Bishops invited the Christians "to acquire a true and lively
awareness of the Jewish tradition" and "to understand the Jew as he
understands himself." In such a light, it is impossible to consider
Jewish subjectivity without discerning the link between the people
and its land in the very name of its Book. This link is much deeper
than political Zionism. To acknowledge such a link is, for a
Christian, so new that the theological justification remains
difficult. We can see it in the brief chapter about the State of
Israel in the "notes" published by the Vatican in June 1985. All
the elements of the question are present but they are not
synthesized. One does not yet see how to combine within a single
view, the Jewish consciousness of the link with the land and the
political reality of the State of Israel. Nevertheless, the
theological reservations which existed in the past about the return
of the Jewish people to its homeland have gradually disappeared.
The obstacle which has for so long postponed the recognition of the
State of Israel by the Vatican, is not anymore of theological
concern. In fact, it is a matter of political circumstances. The
only important factor, serious and in some way decisive, has been
the difficult problem of justice towards the Palestinian people. In
this respect, it is certain that the actions which took place first
in Madrid and especially in Washington, have created a favorable
setting for the encounter of the representatives of the Vatican
with those of Israel. But we should not forget that this meeting
had already been prepared in the hearts of the parties.
For more than thirty years, Jews and Christians have learned to get
acquainted with each other. They have created a relationship of
mutual respect and friendship on every level of dialogue and
encounter. It is striking that the preamble to the accord signed on
December 30th mentions with a kind of fervor rather unusual in
legal documents, the spirit in which the Holy See and the State of
Israel have worked together "attentive to the unique character and
the universal significance of the Holy Land, conscious of the
unique nature of the relations between the Catholic Church and the
Jewish people, as well as the historical process of reconciliation
and of the growing understanding and friendship between Catholics
and Jews." Moreover, the preamble expresses the certainty that the
agreement as elaborated "will provide a solid and durable basis for
a continuous development of the present and future
relationship."
Given the spirit in which this document has been conceived, it will
from now on be a point of departure for further developing mutual
reflective dialogue, and for deepening the understanding between
the two communities. At present, it is our task to implement the
model proposed in this agreement and to realize the possibilities
that it opens up.
We could here repeat the wish that twenty years ago concluded the
document published by the French Episcopal commission for relations
with Judaism. May Jews and Christians meet together "in a same
movement of hope which will be a promise for the whole world." This
hope is still stronger now that it has been announced in Jerusalem
by a text that ties together the Church and Israel.
<