Cardinal Cupich: ‘Evangelization’ doesn’t mean converting Jews to Catholicism

[PetraG]

I’m not speaking of missionary efforts directly. There’s a pretty hefty amount of research on the Holocaust and the supersessionist antisemitism that preceded it.

The willingness to carry out pogroms and the thinking that the Jews were all merely stubborn in their unbelief certainly set the stage to allow the Nazis to commit atrocities.

 

[gracepoole]

Bingo.

(10 characters)

 

[straykat]

I don’t think they really relied on centuries of “anti-Semitism”. They looked right down the road, at what just happened to Russia, and blamed it on Jewish Bolshevik influence. Secondly, Communists were already preaching a “winning message” out in the streets, after the collapse of the economy… and the Nazis had a ready made enemy that you really didn’t even have to point to Russia to scare people with.

And look who they unleashed their madness on in the war. Not just Jews. But communists.

 

[Genesis315]

Can someone show where he said “evangelization” (as the headline quotes) doesn’t mean seeking the conversion of all, including Jews?

He does talk about sins associated with “proslytism.” Here is how the Church has used this word in recent times:

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s note on Evangelizaiton:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

Also, the Church has never taught that ecumenism or inter-religious dialogue is a replacement for evangelization, but rather can be complementary to it (ecumenism being seeking corporate unity; inter-religious dialogue means seeking mutual understanding or working to defend and advance common goods in society). He simply says the same thing as far as I can tell.

As Pope Francis has taught, nobody is to be excluded from evangelisim:

Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. Many of them are quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face, even in countries of ancient Christian tradition. All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone.
…
In fidelity to the example of the Master, it is vitally important for the Church today to go forth and preach the Gospel to all: to all places, on all occasions, without hesitation, reluctance or fear. The joy of the Gospel is for all people: no one can be excluded.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...sortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html

There have been times to criticize this Cardinal, but this doesn’t seem to be one.

 

[Bartholo]

Sorry, no, there had been antisemitism in Europe for centuries. Not just in Germany but all over the place, and there is still some of it around. Even going back to the Crusades, there were some deadly mass-riots against Jews. Yes, the Nazi’s contextualized it in their time, but it was in the soil so to speak. They did not have to start from scratch.

Some may have over-corrected into not wanting to evangelize out of that, but I doubt Cardinal Cupich is one of those.

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t think they really relied on centuries of “anti-Semitism”. They looked right down the road, at what just happened to Russia, and blamed it on Jewish Bolshevik influence. Secondly, Communists were already preaching a “winning message” out in the streets, after the collapse of the economy… and the Nazis had a ready made enemy that you really didn’t even have to point to Russia to scare people with.

And look who they unleashed their madness on in the war. Not just Jews. But communists.

Again, there is a wealth of scholarship that sharply contrasts your claim here. But here – if you want a case in point, check this out: Trust No Fox...

“From the start the Jew has been
A murderer, said Jesus Christ.
And as Our Lord died on the cross
God the Father knew no other race
To torment His Son to death,
He chose the Jews for this.”

This is Nazi propaganda – built on centuries of antisemitism – to encourage citizens to accept the displacement and destruction of their Jewish neighbors.

 

[straykat]

So we blame what is, in effect, a Jewish religion? Because that’s what Christianity is: A Jewish religion. To blame it is absurd. I’m not apologizing for it. I think it best to do what the Jewish Messiah told us to do. “Preach the Gospel to all nations”.

As for Nazis, to spark that level of madness, you need something tangible to rile people up with. I don’t buy this “they all got mad because of centuries of vague history”. People don’t work like that. The things people fear are more visceral and immediate… justified or not.

 

[gracepoole]

You disagree with decades of formidable research. Why? Are you expert in the study of this period and of antisemitism?

And of course, for antisemites, their attitudes weren’t “vague” and they were “visceral and immediate.” Look at the book I linked. Jews swindle non-Jews, they corrupt non-Jewish women… These were practical messages people were receiving in the lead up to WWII.

 

[straykat]

What formidable research do you have in mind? I only think the Inquisition is overstated… Here’s some bullet points:

In any case, I’m not claiming to be an expert in any of them. What I talked about was psychology… psychology of fear. In order to prey on people’s fears, you have to use something close and heighten their sense of danger. Even easier when your enemies fall into the trap themselves and prove your point.

 

[gracepoole]

What formidable research do you have in mind?

Gosh, you can pick from a wide range. Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg, Omer Bartov… These are standard Holocaust historians. Check out any of them.

In any case, I’m not claiming to be an expert in any of them. What I talked about was psychology… psychology of fear. In order to prey on people’s fears, you have to use something close and heighten their sense of danger. Even easier when your enemies fall into the trap themselves and prove your point.

And if you were speaking to a learned scholar in the history and social psychology of the Holocaust and they told you your view is mistaken, would you accept that?

 

[straykat]

And if you were speaking to a learned scholar in the history and social psychology of the Holocaust and they told you your view is mistaken, would you accept that?

Accept what? That Christianity is to blame? lol… no thanks.

 

[gracepoole]

Of course not. Accept that centuries of antisemitism among Christians made the oncoming genocide against Jews more acceptable.

 

[PetraG]

So we blame what is, in effect, a Jewish religion? Because that’s what Christianity is: A Jewish religion. To blame it is absurd. I’m not apologizing for it. I think it best to do what the Jewish Messiah told us to do. “Preach the Gospel to all nations”.

As for Nazis, to spark that level of madness, you need something tangible to rile people up with. I don’t buy this “they all got mad because of centuries of vague history”. People don’t work like that. The things people fear are more visceral and immediate… justified or not.

You can call it religious or you can call it political, but Jews were legally marginalized throughout the European diaspora. When Jews gave themselves permission to act in a more “mainstream” or “assimilated” manner, their success caused a lot of jealousy. They were by no stretch of the imagination considered a “sister” religion at the time. There is not evidence for that.
Sadly, Martin Luther had great hopes for converting the Jews once he had “reformed” the Church, but he failed. After that, he condemned them virulently as liars and blasphemers and suggested atrocities against them in the name of Christianity.
He advised burning their synagogues and schools, razing and destroying their houses, confisication of all their religious books, forbidding their rabbis to teach on pain of loss of life and limb, completely abolishing their safe conduct on roads, and that all their cash, silver and gold be put aside to give seed money to sincere Jewish converts to the Christian faith (by which, needless to say, he meant the Lutheran version), and that the young ones be put to manual labor, according to the penalty assessed against the children of Adam. (He also spread the rumor that Jews spent their sabbaths praying that the Christians might all be stabbed to death, which was somewhat bizarre.)

This was a passage to pastors:
And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do, namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

So, yes, I can see why a cardinal might tread very carefully around the whole topic of “evangelization,” because history says that a Jew with good sense might say, “yeah, ‘evangelization,’ we know what that means…”

 

[straykat]

I don’t think a lot of people in Europe were Christians. I’ve already said this in other threads to you, about over-reliance on Latin. These very Crusaders killed OTHER Christians too. They even raped nuns in the 4th Crusade, and jokingly set a prostitute to sit on the Patriarch of Constantinople’s seat. It’s not just a “Against Jews” problem. These people were monsters in general.

Secondly, I’m not going to vicariously feel guilt over it. Or maybe I’ll just feel “half guilt”. I’m half Thai and half Danish. Maybe some of my Danish ancestors were guilty. But I don’t have this fetish for flogging myself like modern Caucasians do.

 

[twf]

How would you describe them if not “canonically irregular”?

 

[PetraG]

I don’t think a lot of people in Europe were Christians. I’ve already said this in other threads to you, about over-reliance on Latin. These very Crusaders killed OTHER Christians too. They even raped nuns in the 4th Crusade, and jokingly set a prostitute to sit on the Patriarch of Constantinople’s seat. It’s not just a “Against Jews” problem. These people were monsters in general.

Secondly, I’m not going to vicariously feel guilt over it. Or maybe I’ll just feel “half guilt”. I’m half Thai and half Danish. Maybe some of my Danish ancestors were guilty. But I don’t have this fetish for flogging myself like modern Caucasians do.

It is a false dichotomy to set up flailing yourself in guilt and ignoring the history between Christians and Jews as your only two alternatives. You have a lot of other options.
Besides, it doesn’t matter what you “feel” about these things. You can feel bad or good all you like–what effect does it have? Not much. The question is whether or not you are going to look at history, see that people who thought they had good motives committed terrible sins against the dignity of persons while justifying it as “evangelization,” and resolving that the same will not be tolerated on your watch. It isn’t that hard.
By the way, let us not imagine that “these people” were some other race than we are. The human race can do terrible things if it works hard enough to rationalize evil as good. That tendency knows no racial boundary.

 

[gracepoole]

I’m not clear on why we’re now discussing the Crusades.

And no one is trying to make you feel guilt. ??? We’re exploring possible reasons why there is now a hesitancy to convert Jews.

 

[Genesis315]

There is the idea that, since the veil has come upon the hearts of the Jews until the full number of the Gentiles has come in (as described in Scripture), so evangelism efforts toward them is pointless until then. Pope Benedict XVI seems to have advocated this, referencing in one of his works the following advice of St. Bernard to Pope Bl. Eugene III:

St. Bernard, De Consideratione

It is important, therefore, for you to do what you can so that unbelievers may be converted to the faith, that converts may not turn away, that those who have turned away may return; moreover, that the perverse may be directed toward righteousness, the corrupted called back to the truth, and the corruptors refuted by invincible arguments so that they either correct their error, if that be possible, or, if it is not, that they lose their authority and the means of corrupting others. And you must not completely neglect the worst kind of fools; by this I mean heretics and schismatics, for these are the corrupted and the corruptors. Like dogs they tear apart; like foxes they deceive. You should make the greatest effort either to correct such men lest they perish, or restrain them lest they destroy others. Granted, time excuses you from dealing with the Jews: they have their boundary which cannot be passed. The full number of the Gentiles must come in first.

On the other hand, as St. Thomas points out in his commentary on Romans, there are Jewish converts in every age, so it is not fruitless, nor is the “blindness” spoken of in Scripture universal.

 

[PetraG]

We’re exploring possible reasons why there is now a hesitancy to convert Jews.

I think the question is why a cardinal speaking at a synagogue would say the goal of Christianity is not proselytization. The short answer is that the word “proselytization” has had a bad name earned for it, including some who did things that were grave sins against other persons on the wrong-headed theory that anything that resulted in a Jew undergoing baptism and converting to regular observation of Christian rituals was fair game.

 

[straykat]

Thank God for our Christian family in Syria and Iraq. They seem have more stamina and make no wiggle room and long winded excuses, compared to what I see in the West. May we all learn from them!

This is clearly an attack - just not one that’s in-your-face like Daesh, and if you don’t see it, I’m saddened.