The Catholic Synod statement on Israeli settlements

by Frank Kaufmann
Thursday, November 11, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI convened the first Special Assembly for the Middle East of the
Synod of Bishops in Vatican City from October 10th to 24th. More than 170
Catholic bishops from Islamic countries, as well as Roman officials, non-Catholic
Christians and academic experts discussed the future of Christian communities in
the Middle East [1].
The official objective of the synod was “to strengthen Christian identity and
promote ecumenism in Muslim countries.” It began with a mass in Peter's Basilica,
Vatican, in which Benedict XVI said (among other things),
"The Middle East is the land of the exodus and of the return from exile, the
land where Jesus lived, died and resurrected, the cradle of the church,
established to bring the Gospel of Christ to the borders of the world.
"And we too as believers, look at the Middle East, in the prospect of the
history of salvation."
By the end of the Synod, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, head of the commission
that drew up the statement, made the following, shocking statement:
"The theme of the Promised Land cannot be used as a basis to justify the
return of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians.
"We Christians cannot speak of the 'Promised Land' as an exclusive right for
a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no
longer a chosen people -- all men and women of all countries have become
the chosen people." [2]
That same day Danny Ayalon, Deputy
Foreign Minister of Israel, said ,
"We express our disappointment that
this important synod has become a
forum for political attacks on Israel in
the best history of Arab propaganda,
the statements of Archbishop Bustros
are libel against the Jewish people
and the state of Israel. We call on the
Vatican to distance itself." [3]
Foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor
perfectly offered with elegant (extreme)
understatement, "The public theological
debate over who holds the correct

1
interpretation of the Holy Scripture is a thing of the Middle Ages. It seems an
unwise idea to try to revive it." [4]
Ink flowed, echoing, extending, and expanding on these official responses,
throughout Israeli and other world media, and properly so.
AFP on Tuesday, October 26, reported further on the synod saying,
"The Vatican moved yesterday to soothe Israeli anger over critical remarks made
by Middle East Catholic bishops.
"Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the synod was "largely
positive" and individual statements from bishops did not reflect the opinion of the
conference.
"If one wishes for a synthesized expression of the positions of the [Middle Eastern]
synod, one must take it from the message," he said, referring to the conference's
final communique." [5]
But this is no distance. At best it can be described only as condescending,
counterfeit, discomposing, insufficient distance.
Fully regardless of ones views on Israel and Palestine, everything about the
statement of US Melkite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, and the patronizing,
anemic response of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi to Israeli
officials and citizens is problematic.
Synod conclusions and statements from its designated spokesperson grow directly
from the opening direction offered His Holiness. Pope Benedict XVI will remain on
the record as in collusion with Bustros's statements, unless and until he does far
more to make his positions clear than sit silently behind Father Lombardi's smug
condescension.
It is known already that Benedict approaches Catholicism as having the mission to
evangelize. He is open about his interest to convert and appropriate believers
from non-Catholic religions and traditions into the “one true Church.” We saw this
also when he so perfectly offended Muslims in his 2006 Tubingen speech. The
homily with which he opened this Synod continued the same tradition.
Is such an approach problematic? Yes. Unhelpful? Yes. Out of step. I think so. But,
OK. Not a sin. There are legitimate strains of Christian interpretation that affirm
the legitimacy of evangelizing non-Christians. I've written abundantly to express
unequivocal disagreement. But Christianity can legitimately be so understood.
The core of the problem does not lie in this form of religious colonizing intent.
The problem also does not lie in the decision of the bishops to express political
opinion. Despite the widespread popularity of the view that religion and politics
should remain separate, it is an errant view nevertheless. The sin of the Middle
Eastern bishops was not in their decision to condemn publicly Israeli policy.
Religious leaders bear responsibility to speak on policy and and politicians
especially as pertains to the ideals of justice, compassion, and related virtues. The

2
bishops are not wrong to offer opinions or condemnations of political action they
feel violates human dignity.
The problem also does not lie in the fact that the concluding statement of the
bishops failed to address the express purposes of the Synod, namely to address
the situation of Christians in the Middle East. Had the Bishops adhered to the
purposes for which this costly gathering was convened, they would have had to
acknowledge facts like "Israel's Christian population has grown since the
establishment of the Jewish state, while in much of the rest of the Middle East
Christians have fled in large numbers." And they would have had to ponder the
findings of Open Doors, an organization that tracks attacks on Christians, and
regularly compiles a global "persecution index," when they publish the reality that
of the top ten countries on the list, eight are Islamic and three -- Iran, Saudi Arabia
and Yemen -- are in the Middle East. [6] The complaint by Israel was not that 180
Bishops strayed off course and got distracted.
The complaint is about the outrageous, unthinkable presumption by which a
Christian in this day and age can appear on the international stage, and
unabashedly reintroduce the vile-minded stance that informed 2,000 years of
Christian evil in its treatment of Jews. To have to hear from the mouth of a
Lebanese-born so-called Christian, "We Christians cannot speak of the 'Promised
Land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was
nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people" [7] should offend
everyone.
We can be thankful perhaps that the conclusions of the Synod and the prideful
bluster of His Eminence Bustros fell short of calling for blood libels, expulsions,
forced conversions and massacres. But still one can only shudder to awaken in the
21st century and hear a so-called Christian tell Jews how to interpret their
scriptures, and declare that Christ has nullified their entire religion! With this,
October 24, 2010 became a dark day for religion. The convener of this two week
synod, HH Benedict XVI has yet to provide even a flickering candle against this
horrid and unwelcome shadow.