Newspaper Page Text
i
K
4
PAGE 6 - February 26,1970
Where Have All The
Christians Gone?
s?
1
:•:•
8
BY FATHER GABRIEL
SLATER, A. A.
JERUSALEM (NC) -
Already faced with the many
problems common to a
war-torn society, Christian
authorities in the Holy Land
now admit to another worry:
the growing emigration of the
area’s Christians.
The tendency of Arab
Christians to leave the Holy
Land has been observed with
some alarm since before the
collapse of the Turkish
Empire in 1917. But each
new political and military
crisis brings even more
departures and emigration has
literally snowballed since the
Israeli advances during 1967’s
Six-Day War.
Concern over the problem
has reached as high as Pope
Paul VI, who has made
private inquiries and public
references to the situation. In
his Dec. 15,1969, speech to a
meeting of cardinals, the
Pope asked:
“Will the beautiful and
majestic temples that recall
the happenings of Christ’s life
where they occurred be one
day deprived of the living
presence of their ecclesial
communities?”
Earlier, a reliable source told
me that Pope Paul raised the
same question with Israeli
Foreign Minister Abba Eban
in a private audience last Oct.
6.
The three Latin-rite and
two Melkite-rite Catholic
bishops of the Holy Land
(Israel and Jordan) have also
been discussing the problem
at their regular monthly
meetings.
Archbishop Pio Laghi,
Apostolic delegate to
Jerusalem and chairman of
the bishops’ meetings, told a
reporter that the bishops’
discussions have so far been
limited to an analysis of the
problem. Archbishop Laghi
added that the Catholic
bishops have not entered into
discussion of the emigration
crisis with leaders of other
Christian communities in the
Holy Land.
While these discussions go
on, statistics gathered by
various government agencies
and independent authorities
indicate that the emigration
rate is accelerating
throughout the area.
A 1961 survey by the
Jordanian government
reported 12,934 Christians in
Jerusalem. A survey taken by
the Israeli Central Bureau of
Statistics in the city in 1967
reported the total down to
11,234. The sanfe surveys’
totals for the West Bank area
(Jordanian territory west of
the Jordan River prior to the
1967 war) showed a decrease
from 32,918 to 27,147
between 1961 and 1967.
Reports by the influential
Israeli daily Ha Aretz indicate
that about 150,000 Christians
occupied the Gaza strip and
West Bank areas in 1946. Dr.
Saul P. Colbi, director of the
Christian section of the Israeli
Ministry of Religious Affairs,
recently reported a total
Christian population there of
99,500.
Even sharper population
drops are reported by
Catholic authorities, who
claim that about 8,000
Christians have left the cities
of Jerusalem and Ramallah
since 1967. Similarly,
Melkite-rite Archbishop
Joseph Raya of Acre reported
that Haifa city saw 32,000 of
its 40,000 Christians depart
between 1948 and the
present.
A considerable part of
these population losses come
from the removal of British
troops and colonial officials
after the establishment of
Israel in 1947 and 1948.
Another reason for the
population drop is the
departure of students and
others who are out of the
area on a temporary basis.
Some will come back and
some will not, but for the
present, these people are
counted as losses.
Study of this problem
points to social,
psychological, political and
religious causes.
One of the main social
causes is unemployment
among the better educated
professional classes and also
the attraction of relatives
who have improved their
status in North and South
America, Australia and
elsewhere, often in Arab
countries. A leading Anglican
clergyman assured me that
there was considerable
Christian unemployment in
former Jordan-controlled
areas even in Jordanian times,
largely due to Moslems being
in the majority and to
Moslems catching up on
education.
One of the main
psychological causes, so
Archbishop Basilios, chief
secretary of the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate here,
told me, is anxiety for the
future. On Jan. 4, the Israeli
government announced that
18,000 Arabs from the
occupied areas are now
employed in Israel.
Archbishop Basilios
commented that this is
because so many Israelis are
mobilized at the moment that
Arabs, especially unskilled
workers, wonder whether
there will still be work for
them when demobilzation
comes. He also noted that the
Arabs themselves prefer
Israeli medical specialists,
leading to underemployment
among their own medical
doctors.
Another psychological
cause is conflict in outlook
between young and old. Boys
and girls, through contact
with young Jews and through
the communications media,
are lead to rebel against the
social restrictions of
traditional Arab society and
seek greater freedom in more
developed countries.
The political causes of
emigration are among the
most powerful and affect
Christian Arabs both in Arab
and Jewish areas. One is the
development of an Arab
nationalist movement with a
clearly Moslem character and
anti-Western political
tendencies. Again there is the
fact that, as a result especially
of Arab terrorism, Arabs in
Israel have relatively few
social contacts with Israelis.
This leads to a growing
minority complex among
Christian Arabs. Once Arabs
have emigrated it is very
difficult for them to get
permission to return to Israel.
Political events in this
region have reinforced the
causes already mentioned:
Christians in the Holy Land
are members of a
thrice-defeated minority. As a
result they often consider
themselves second-rate
citizens: thus Christian Arabs
in Israel proper may
volunteer to join the armed
forces but cannot rise above
the rank of sergeant; any
motor vehicle with a number
plate from one of the
occupied areas will be more
closely scrutinized for
possible terrorists.
Religious causes are mainly
threefold: there is first of all
the fact that too many
Christian institutions, schools
and churches, have not
become sufficiently
integrated. Their staffs have
not learned Arabic and
Hebrew and have trained
local Christians, already
considered by their Moslem
fellow countrymen as
Western representatives, for
emigration to the Western
countries whose language and
professional skills Western
Christians have taught them.
Secondly, whereas in
Turkish and British times,
both local and foreign
Christian leaders and
representatives often
intervened with the civil
authorities in favor of the
Christian minority, today one
of the loudest voices in favor
of Arab rights is that of the
communists, both here and
abroad.
Finally, local Christians
just as much as visiting
pilgrims are scandalized by
Christian lack of unity in the
very city where Christ prayed
at the Last Supper for the
unity of his disciples.
Even within the Catholic
Church in the Holy Land
there is proselytism and
recrimination between the
Latin and the Eastern rites.
The result is that many
Christians who do not leave
the Holy Land no longer take
an active part in Christian
enterprises.
Proposals to reverse the
tide of emigration range from
a more ecumenical spirit
among Christians to the
development of
Christian-financed industries.
Another remedy that has
been proposed is greater
integration of Christian
education so that the pupils
are prepared to live and work
in their native land. More
contacts might be developed
with emigrant Arab
communities, with a view to
encouraging some of the
emigrants to return to the
Holy Land, at least in their
old age.
Above all, the Christian
Churches must learn to
cooperate with each other
much more than they do
now, though a few small
ecumenical groups are already
at work.
Teddy Kollek, popular
mayor of Jerusalem, said he,
too, is interested in stemming
the tide of emigration.
“I have always considered
Jerusalem as a mosaic of
communities and not as a
monolith,” he explained. “I
am interested in the members
of the various Christian
communities as citizens.”
He went on to note that
the Jerusalem municipality
had made considerable loans
to East Jerusalem, some of
the largest of them to
Christian merchants and
enterprises. In particular,
Mayor Kollek was largely
responsible for encouraging
and helping the Armenian
Orthodox Patriarchate to
organize an exhibition of its
remarkable collection of
sacred vestments, liturgical
vessels and manuscripts.
The precise extent and
causes of this problem will
have to be studied further by
the Catholic bishops before it
is possible to take practical
steps to cope with it. In the
meantime, as a Catholic
bishop remarked: “The only
real remedy is peace.”
Worship And
The World
BY FATHER JOSEPH
M. CHAMPLIN
Confession In The Seventies
ON THE WAY TO SEE THE QUEEN - Francois Cardinal Marty, Archbishop of Paris, right,
accompanied by Archbishop Michael Ramsey, Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, left, is shown
in a limousine arriving at Buckingham Palace in London, where the cardinal was received by Queen
Elizabeth II. (NC Photo)
‘GIFT OF THF. SPIRIT’
Archbishop Cites Blacks 9
Contribution To Religion
CINCINNATI (NC)- Black
America’s chief gift to the
nation’s white majority is a
religious one, Archbishop
Paul F. Leibold of Cincinnati
told De Porres Council,
Knights of Columbus, here.
Moreover, the Negro stands
as the test of the white man’s
profession of religion and of
democracy, the archbishop
said.
He recalled that the De
Porres council had been
formed five years ago “to
make a special appeal to the
Black Catholic community.”
Archbishop Leibold
acknowledged that at that
time, as auxiliary bishop of
Cincinnati, he had been
opposed to the formation of
a mostly black council
because he saw it “as a
concession to the evil of
segregation.” But he added
that he had to “admit that
with the direction the race
problem has taken in the past
year or two, in the
Providence of God it is the
best thing you could have
done.'
‘And so you have my
fullest blessing and prayerful
hope for continued growth as
a living response to the
unique needs of our day in a
most critical area,” he said.
The archbishop reminded
the Knights that “there was a
time when there was quite a
battle with particular local
units and members of the K.
of C. -never with the national
organization-about this
matter of integration.”
“As with most such
problems, the greater and
saner element won the day
and the problem was resolved
in a Christian manner,” he
continued. To support his
reference to the fact that the
national K. of C. organization
“never subscribed to this
patent evil of racism,” the
archbishop cited a book,
“The Gift of Black Folk in
the Making of America,”
published in 1924 by the
Knights of Columbus-“a few
years, in fact a few decades,
before it was so popular to
hop on the bandwagon.”
He pointed out that “the
well-documented
publication” presents
chapters on black explorers,
workers and soldiers, on
freedom and democracy, on
Negro art and literature.
“Among the contributions,
the one of particular concern
in our context of religion is
the ‘Gift of the Spirit” the
peculiar spiritual quality that
the Negro had injected into
American life and
civilization-a certain spiritual
joyousness, a love of life, a
dreamful conception of the
universe, an intense
sensitiveness to spiritual
values,” the archbishop said.
Noting that “the first
distinctively Negro American
institution was the Negro
church,” Archbishop Leibold
said: “Gradually it brought a
rational human religion based
on kindliness and social uplift
to bear on the cold formalism
of the Puritan heritage.
“Negroes indeed have
made their contribution to
organized religion, but back
of all this there has run in the
heart of the American black
man the greatest of human
achievements, that is, love
and sympathy- even for their
enemies.
“They have nursed the
sick, offered friendship to the
friendless and shared the
pittance of their poverty with
the outcast.”
“With all these changes in
the liturgy, are there any
plans to modify the
sacrament of Penance? Will
confession be changed or
eliminated in the seventies?
These questions come up
consistently during the
discussion period after
lectures on liturgical renewal.
Will we see the prayers and
forgiveness formula altered?
Yes, perhaps within tne next
year. Will the Holy See
establish, as standard
practice, group absolution
without private mention of
personal sins to a specific
priest? Probably not. Will the
type of confession we have
known and observed over the
past decades be prohibited or
discouraged? No.
This writer certainly would
welcome improved texts and
a clearer procedure for use by
the priest and the penitent in
this sacrament. And, as I
mentioned in an earlier
column, we should renovate
confessional “boxes” and
develop comfortable rooms
for optional “face to face”
encounters. But I wonder if
our fundamental problem
here is not the form we
follow or the place we use,
but the approach we take. I
wonder if forward-thinking
religion instructors have not
too quickly written off
private telling of sins as
another once valuable, but
now outmoded teaching of
the Catholic Church. I
wonder if the field ripe for
the harvest at the present
moment is not in fact a
positive, growth-oriented
course for young and old
alike on “How to make a
good confession.”
Similar comments came
recently from the lips of a
pretty and personable coed.
She is neither a future nun
nor a careless Catholic. Even
as a busy nursing student she
finds time occasionally to
pray her rosary and stop in
for weekday Mass. Still, her
attractive appearance brings
many offers for dates and her
pleasant personality keeps
suitors coming back a second
time. This young lady’s
question basically is: “Why
go when I haven’t failed God
seriously? Why slip in and out
of the box without any real
change in my life? What good
are routine confessions?”
The problem then seems to
revolve around devotional use
of the sacrament. Those who
feel they have severed
friendship with the Lord by
serious sin and seek
reconciliation experience
their own difficulties with
confession. Courage is what
they need, and a willingness
to leave the past behind. The
person, however, who leads
an essentially good life, but
wishes to improve it, who
tries, but would like to do
better can or should see
Penance as a very helpful
instrument in this struggle to
grow.
To help people make
devotional confessions richer
and less routine, Father John
E. Corrigan several years ago
wrote a little pamphlet,
“Bless Me, Father” as a
“guide to confession for men
and women of today, with
advice on the examination of
conscience and practical
examples.” I presume both
author’s and publisher’s
permissions (Claretian
Publications, 221 West
Madison Street, Chicago
Illinois 60606, Pamphlet
Department) to exerpt the
following sample confession
of a housewife. It illustrates a
constructive examination of
conscience, a painful but
healing admission of lesser
sins and a specific, postive
approach to resolutions for
improvements.
“My last confession was
two weeks ago. I am a
housewife and mother of two
small children. My resolution
for the last few months has
been to curb my tendency to
nag my husband and be more
cheerful with him. I think I
did better during this period.
“I have incurred
unneessary debts and have
managed the home finances
poorly and selfishly.
“I learned last week that I
am pregnant, and I have been
depressed and felt resentful
because it was unexpected. I
think I have overcome these
feelings now.
“My Lenten resolution to
read the New Testament
every day has suffered
because of the company we
had last week. I’ll begin
again.”
Who Is A Jew? Israeli Court Answers
BY MSGR. JOHN M.
OESTERREICHER
COPYRIGHT 1970,
NC NEWS SERVICE
The author of this
copyrighted article is director of
the Institute of Judaeo-Christian
Studies at Seton Hall University,
South Orange, N.J., and editor of
“The Bridge,” a collection f
studies on relationships between
Christians and Jews. He has just
returned from a trip to Israel
Many Christians are either
amazed or bewildered that a
country like Israel, besieged
and indeed threatened in its
very existence, can afford to
engage in a debate as agitating
and divisive as that caused by
the recent decision of its
Supreme Court in the “Shalit
Case.”
I, on the contrary, am
impressed.
That the issue “Who is a
Jew?” can be so hotly
discussed at a time like this
proves the stamina of the
people of Israel. Though
defense is their immediate
problem, their minds are not
absorbed by military matters
and physical surival alone.
To be able to answer the
question “Who is a Jew?” one
must ask: “What are the
Jews? Are they a people or a
religion?”
The answer is not difficult.
There is no Jewish religion
without the Jewish people,
nor is the Jewish people
historically conceivable
without faith in the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.-
Thus they are a family, a
brotherhood, a people,
' religious in origin and
destiny.
This link of peoplehood
and faith gives Jews their
uniqueness. Since their faith
is but the response to God’s
call that they serve Him with
undaunted hearts, Jews are
best defined as a convenanted
people.
To keep the convenant
with the Lord unbroken,
faith in Him intact, and
worship of Him, the one
living God, undefiled by
idolatry has been the task of
Israel’s elite, her prophets and
teachers. This meant a
secluded life for the people,
free from the ever-present
temptation by their neighbors
to have them bow to heathen
gods.
I said “ever-present”:
When they took possession of
the pronised land, they had
to live among and were
surrounded by pagan nations.
Soon “they took daughters in
marriage, and gave their own
daughters to their sons in
marriage, and served their
gods” (Judges 3:6). This sad
cycle was often repeated.
Hence the warning, indeed
the prohibition: “You shall
not intermarry with them”
(Deut. 7:3).
Particularly disastrous was
the influence of pagan wives;
they seemed to have
remained constant in their
old ways. When they
rendered “their wanton
worship to their gods,” they
made their men do the same
(see Ex. 34:16).
It is on the basis of such
experience and the frequent
biblical injunctions against
“mixed marriage” that the
rabbis developed the legal
principle that only the son or
daughter of a Jewish mother
or of a gentile mother
converted to Judaism can be
considered Jewish, never the
child of an unconvered
gentile mother.
It is obvious that the
principle is dictated not by a
concern for the purity of
Jewish blood but of Jewish
life.
The rule is interesting in
that it deviates from the usual
practice that has a son follow
the status of his father-for
instance, the son of a Cohen
(priest) is himself a Cohen.
Though the rabbis have
never expressly said so, these
may be their reasons: respect
for a mother’s almost
indelible influence on her
young child, and also the
awareness that the mother
can always be determined
with certainty-not, however,
the father.
For many centuries, the
rule proved to be a safe guide,
serving the Jewish
community well. Nowadays it
is questioned.
Orthodox Jews and all
those devoted to tradition
uphold it, while many who
admire or advocate modern
trends oppose it. They say
that in our mobile and fluid
society it is no longer valid
and even leads to absurd
consequences. Former Israeli
Prime Minister David
Ben-Gurion’s son married a
gentile; former Soviet Premier
Nikita Khrushchev’s son took
a Jewess for his wife.
Now, according to the
traditional principle, the
grandchildren of the founder
of modern Israel are gentiles,
unless converted, whereas
those of the Soviet leader, no
friend of Israel, are Jewish,
whether they acknowledge it
or not. Yet, a principle does
not cease to be sound even if
it cannot solve marginal cases
to everyone’s satisfaction.
The Shalit case which
has given rise to the present
preoccupation with who is a
Jew goes to the very heart of
this question.
The facts are, briefly:
Lt. Cmdr, Benjamin Shalit
married, some years ago, a
Scottish woman, never
converted to Judaism. Both
are by their own admission
nonreligious. How should
their two children be
identified in the public
records?
(On Jan. 23 the Israeli
High Court decided 5-4 that,
in effect, a Jew is anyone
who says he is a Jew, even if
he rejects Judaism as a
religion. Six days later the
Israeli Cabinet approved for
submission to Parliament a
bill that would instead make
the ancient rabbinical
definition, based on
motherhood or conversion,
the law of the land.)
Undoubtedly, the
nationality of the Shalit
children is, and is recorded as,
Israeli. Their religion is listed
as none. But how is a third
category to be listed? The
Israeli public register inquires
after the “le’um” of the
registrant; the word is best
translated as “peoplehood.”
(It does not rpean, as is
sometimes assumed,
“nationality.”)
Since Jews are people of a
very special religious
dimension, it is hardly
possible that the children/ of
an irreligious Jewish man and
an irreligious gentile woman,
no matter how deeply they
are involved in the cultural
life of Israel and no matter
how dedicated they are to its
civic progress or its defense,
be considered Jewish in the
traditional sense.
All sorts of suggestions for
solving the predicament of
the Shalits and many other
similar families have been
proposed: for instance, that
the rubric “le’um” be
stricken from public records
or that another be created
that would, within certain
limits, allow the registrant to
declare himself as Jewish and
compel the registrar to accept
every bona fide declaration.
At this moment, it is
impossible to predict what
practical solution the Israeli
government and parliament
will agree upon. It is safe,
however, to say that there
will be heated discussion.
Yet, life will not stand still
nor will the sense of unity
that binds all dedicated
Israelis together be stifled.
I am sure, too, that, on the
one hand, the traditional
principle will continue to rule
all aspects of a person’s
religious life and that, on the
other, the struggle for
freedom from the rule of
rabbinical law-for instance,
the struggle for the possibility
of a civil marriage and
divorce-will go on. Whether
it will be possible to reconcile
the two opposing tendencies,
and how, only the future can
tell.
All alarmists notwithstand
ing, by its order to have the
Shalit children registered as
Jewish, the Israeli Supreme
Court has not planted a time
bomb that will blow Israeli
society apart. Israelis are level
headed; they will argue with
one another but they will
have no suicidal tendencies.
Nor will the decision bring
harm to American Jewry. I
have been asked if it might
not give new force to the old
libel that American Jews have
a double loyalty, one to the
United States and another to
the State of Israel. I cannot
imagine how the Supreme
Court decision or any future
action by the Israeli
parliament could give
credence to the charge.
American Jews are of
American, not of Israeli,
nationality. That they feel a
special affection or bond to
Israel and to all Jews the
world over proves only that
Jews, observant or not, feel
part of a community that is
at once ethnic and spiritual.
This kinship interferes with
their obligations as American
citizens as little as does a
Roman Catholic’s affection for
and loyalty to the Pope.
Nor is there any reason for
fearing that the Shalit case
will in any way disturb
Christian-Jewish relations. To
see Jews as they see
themselves is, in fact,
essential to our dialogue. No
relationship is ecumenical
unless the partners appreciate
each other’s thinking and feel
each other’s problems.
To be moved, as we are by
the Shalit case, to feel in our
hearts the things that agitate
and even pain the body of
Jews, can only be a gain for
us and for them.
At the risk, then, of being
called unrealistic, I see in the
Shalit case an event that can
(and I mean “can,” not
“will”) improve the spiritual
climate among Jews and
improve Christian-Jewish
relation. It depends on
whether reactions remain on
the surface or go to the heart
of the question.