Sixty years ago, on October 28, 1965, the Second Vatican Council adopted, and Pope Paul VI promulgated, the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, known by the first words in the official Latin text as Nostra Aetate (In Our Age). I chart Nostra Aetate’s sometimes rocky passage through Vatican II in To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II.
Suffice it to note here that the obstinate refusal of some Arab states to concede the reality and permanence of Israel as a Jewish state injected itself into the Council’s discussion, creating difficulties. Nonetheless, and in no small part because of the indefatigable work of Pope Pius XII’s former confessor, the German biblical scholar Cardinal Augustin Bea, SJ, Nostra Aetate made it across the conciliar finish line—and thank God it did, given the resurgence of the cultural cancer of antisemitism today.
At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, Tucker Carlson continued his pell-mell descent down the slippery slope of vileness by attributing Jesus’ death to the “hummus-eaters.” So it is well that we have the Catholic Church’s solemn declaration, in Nostra Aetate, that “neither all Jews indiscriminately” at the time of Christ, “nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during [Christ’s] passion”—and the unambiguous affirmation that the Church “deplores all hatreds, persecutions, [and] displays of antisemitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.”
Just as importantly, we have the Council’s acknowledgment of the religious debt that Catholicism owes to Judaism:
The Church of Christ acknowledges that … the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ — Abraham’s sons according to faith (cf. Galatians 3:7) — are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. (cf. Romans 11:17-24). …
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises …” (Romans 9:4-5) … She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people. …
In company with the Prophets and [St. Paul], the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice…
As I said in a lecture last month at the University of Colorado Boulder, antisemitism is a betrayal of Christianity, for Jew-hatred is Christ-hatred.
Why? Because Jesus of Nazareth makes no sense without understanding him as he understood himself: as a son of God’s covenant with the Jewish people who, from the Cross, evoked Psalm 22 and its triumphant claim that “dominion belongs to the Lord” who “rules over the nations” and to whom “all the proud of the earth bow down.”
Moreover, Christianity makes no sense without its Jewish parent, as the Christian New Testament makes no sense without the Hebrew Bible. Absent its foundation in, and tether to, Judaism, Christianity would have been another short-lived mystery cult from the ancient world, with Jesus of Nazareth as the miracle-working Galilean version of the first-century miracle-working Neopythagorean, Apollonius of Tyana. Early Christians understood this. So even in its childhood, historically speaking, Catholicism decisively rejected the heresy of Marcionism, which scorned the Old Testament and created a repugnant caricature of the God of the Hebrew Bible.
Antisemitism is a malignancy in society. Throughout modern political history, rising antisemitism has been an unmistakable marker of cultural decay. And as politics is downstream from culture, the public effects of that cultural decay can be draconian, as history teaches us—from the passions unleashed during the Dreyfus Affair in the French Third Republic, through the cultural meltdown of Weimar Germany and its genocidal political outcome, to the maniacal barbarism of Hamas on October 7, 2023.
If we imagine the 21st-century Western world immune to those political passions, we are fooling ourselves—and not paying attention.
So let us mark the diamond anniversary of Nostra Aetate by slamming down, and then nailing shut, the widening Overton Window on antisemitism.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Respect for Jews and the Jewish religion should never be conflated to mean an endorsement of everything the State of Israel does. The Neoncons want you to believe they’re synonymous; they are not.
Do you mean the military action that have been necessitated by the incessant wars that have been waged against Israel since its founding? Do you believe it is a policy of the government to cause destruction rather than to survive? Do you believe the nation of Israel has a right to exist? Do you believe that if Israel did not exist that Judaism would still exist and be flourishing elsewhere?
Thomas; Yes Israel has a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. Revenge must be proportional, and Israel has gone way beyond justified military action and must stop and let the International community monitor the situation. The Palestinian people have a right to a homeland and self rule. Hamas must be eliminated and a new government set up. Israel has no right to this land and must allow them free access to trade and the sea. The West Bank is a very complicated area and should also be allowed autonomy. I personally don’t know how they can be united in a free country as a State divided by Israel. As to Jerusalem I think the solution once proposed of a free City State monitored by the International community might work. Open and free access for all. Complicated but possible. As to the Jews existing outside of the State of Israel: they proved that already with an amazing Over 1500 year track record. Perhaps a world record.
These are more NPR talking points, par for the course for your tiresome posts. Review the atrocities the Palestinians committed on October 7th. That will subvert the lie you embrace that Israel’s response is not proportional to the crimes that took place. The IDF hasn’t raped and murdered elderly Palestinian women. And they haven’t slaughtered young people and sent pictures to the deceased’s parents using their cellphones. Your antisemitism is shameful.
I don’t think the Judea & Samaria’s Arabs being divided is as much a worry as Israel being surrounded by people indoctrinated & paid to destroy them.
We know what a “2 state solution” brought about on Oct. 7th.
“Palestinians” as a whole do not desire a homeland and self rule so much as the complete elimination of Israel and the extermination of every Jew living in Israel.
Thomas Ryder: If you’re responding to me, do so by name. Presuming you are, I simply said that not supporting some action taken by the State of Israel should never be interpreted as Anti-Semitism. Nowhere is there evidence that the State of Israel is perfect in all ways.
I was replying to DigenesRedux. Is that you? What would you have done differently if you were Israel? In the past two years? The past 20? in 1948? In 1967? in 1973? During the first infitada? the second?
We don’t have to endorse everything Israel does politically. Few Israelis even agree about that. But Jews deserve to live peaceably in the homeland given to them by God.
There’s no other place on the planet where they can flourish in the same way.
With the exception of Iran & it’s paid mercenaries, Israel’s neighbors want peace. Not because they love Israel but because they know peace brings prosperity.
In a like manner treated the State of Israel as an entity that is always in the wrong doesn’t help either.
Both extremes are bad.
Paleocons need to know that too.
Cheers friend.
Peace be with you.
While Nostra Aetate was in the oven, Pope Paul VI made a visit to both Israel and Jordan and—to avoid possible misunderstandings—it was then proposed to balance the opening toward the Jews with an opening toward Moslems. What would Moslems think about a visit to Jerusalem when they—the Moslems—“find it hard to distinguish between the temporal and the spiritual, the political and the religious orders” (Fr. Farhat at Vatican Radio)?
Three months later (May 19, 1964) came a Secretariat for Non-Christians. The Declaration not only addresses Judaism but also Islam and then adds mention of the other natural religions of India, China and Japan (adopted Oct. 28, 1965 by a Council vote of 2221 to 88).
INSIGHT: So, about the fundamental aversion within Islam of making distinctions(!), one wonders what a more seasoned Declaration might have said if it had been able to consider a basic insight voiced by a perceptive Muslim in 1956, but broadly published only in 1965:
“It all comes down to knowing whether one should hold strictly to the fundamental religious values which were those of Abraham and Moses, on pain of falling into blasphemy [against the ahistorical umma?] —as the Muslims believe; or whether God has called men to approach him more closely, revealing to them little by little their fundamental condition as sinful men, and the forgiveness that transforms them and prepares them for the [historicity and everlasting] beatific vision—as Christian dogma teaches.” (al Akkad in 1956, as cited by Jean Guitton, “The Great Heresies and Church Councils,” 1965).
QUESTION: Is the meaningful contact point between Christianity and Islam NOT of parallel “religions,” but of Christian ‘faith’ in the eternal person of Jesus Christ—and Islamic ‘belief’ in the “uncreated” and polyglot Qur’an?
That is, not even between the two scriptures (the Bible and the Qur’an) side-by-side. The truly symmetrical and coherent comparison to be pursued between concrete persons—the “witnesses to Christ (Logos)” and the “followers of (heterogeneous) Islam”? The “[Self-disclosing] Word made flesh” and “the [Islamic and anti-Triune] word made book.”
Peter: perhaps the contact should be viewed as between persons, not faiths.
That’s the point…but there still are obstacles. Because not between “faiths”…but rather between faith and religions.
To the Jew first, and the Greek (gentile) as well . (Rom. 1:16)
Oy vey. Mr. Weigel, there is no such thing as “Christianity.” As Hilaire Belloc was so right to point out in Europe and the Faith, that is an ahistorical term.
Weigel’s gratuitous attack on Tucker Carlson – he does not have have courage to attack Kirk, who is his real target – is an outright lie. Carlson’s reference to “hummus eaters” was clearly an attack on the liberals who wanted Kirk to shut up about Christian values, the kind of fascist intellectuals on our college campuses who want everyone with a different opinion to shut up. (The entire speech is easily found on Youtube.) I do not endorse Carlson’s views on many issues, but the “vileness’ here is clearly Weigel’s willingness to lie.
Tucker Carlson has a knack for implicature and plausible deniability.
If he did not mean to imply Jews he should have phrased his words differently.
But he didn’t.
Just saying…
Amen. I have joined you in my own comment.
What a horrific and manipulative lie George Weigel has written in this essay.
Rotten…
Hummus eaters could refer to anyone who appreciates Middle Eastern food. Perhaps Mr. Carlson could explain which group of hummus eaters he was referring to.
My wife makes her own hummus.
What a blessing!
I make my own, too. Deacon Edward.
🙂
Sorry, but Weigel is right: Carlson has progressively aligned himself with notorious figures, including his Putin promotion.
On the same token, this unquestioned support of Ukraine is going to cause the Russians to use a nuclear weapon. Can’t happen? Wait and see. Then, I want all the unquestioning Ukraine supporters – men and women – to sign up to fight. And don’t think that China won’t be dragged into that war – beginning with their invasion of Taiwan. Will George Weigel be first in line to sign up for combat duty? Hardly. Weigel is pi$$ed with Carlson because Carlson does not support going to war with Russia over Ukraine. Whoever floated that stupid idea about Ukraine joining NATO should be brought up on charges.
Whether Carlson has “aligned himself” with notorious figures or not, the issue here is what he said and did not say at the Kirk memorial service. When he made the “hummus eaters” remark, he was not referring to the death of Christ, but to the death of Kirk, and he was not referring to Jews, but to the media establishment and academics. The context of his remark was clear. If one has a valid objection to another’s views, it should not be necessary to lie about him.
There is nothing ‘gratuitous’, Tim, about highlighting Tucker’s increasingly playing footsie with antisemitism. Or are you pretending that Tucker didn’t just do a fawning interview with notorious antisemite and Holocaust denier, Nick Fuentes? Apologies for the inconvenient truths.
George Weigel has outright lied against Tucker Carlson to smear him as anti-semitic.
Timothy Williams has already pointed this out, and having watched Carlson’s short 6 minute tribute to Charlie Kirk, I can only amplify what an outrageous lie Mr. Weigel has just told here at CWR.
And George Weigel’s lying smear against Carlson, who knew and admired Charlie Kirk, affords us all the opportunity to recall what George Weigel did when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and he had a chance to praise the heroism if Charlie Kirk – Mr. Weigel wrote instead at that moment to CONTEMPTUOUSLY IGNORE THE MURDER OF CHARLIE KIRK, and suggest that we should all be focused instead on the “real American hero” Cal Ripkin.
In closing, I have 3 things to note:
1. Charlie Kirk was a heroic young Christian man who deserved to be praised, and was ignored by George Weigel.
2. Tucker Carlson has at times gone off the rails on some topics, most especially with his recent (and I am currently inclined to think, and certainly hope it is the case) and seemingly ignorant attacks on Winston Churchill as the villain of WW2), but I am withholding judgment on that, as I think Tucker Carlson may simply be ignorant out of over-reactionary mistrust of the western establishment. We shall see.
3. But Mr. Weigel with this essay seems to have tipped his hand that he is willing to lie to his readers to manipulate them, and my conclusion will remain unchanged regarding his apparent deceitfulness, until what time, if ever, that he apologizes for this lie smearing Mr. Carlson, and withdraws his essay above.
What a horrible thing to do Mr. Weigel.
Horrible.
Chris –
Stop being a MAGA snowflake. Let me puncture some holes in your silo for a moment. If Tucker is such a faithful friend of Charlie Kirk, why did he just platform a guy (Nick Fuentes) on his podcast who has a long track record for attacking & smearing Charlie Kirk over the years.
But, yes, George Weigel is DEFINITELY the bad actor here…
Behold:
It is Vince…Sheriff-of-All-Truth.
Re-surfacing for air…
Additionally VINCE-OF-ALL-TRUTH:
It’s probably a safe bet that the reason Erika Kirk invited Tucker Carlson to speak at her husband’s memorial is that they were good friends.
As to interviewing Nick F on his podcast, there is a range of possible reasons, from good to neutral to bad and even sinister.
And if bad/sinister, well that certainly would reflect poorly on Tucker Carlson, wouldn’t it Vince-Of-All-Truth?
But no matter what trajectory Mr. Carlson ends up taking, we were all offered a lesson by Mr. Weigel, when he showed utter contempt for Charlie Kirk, by deliberately penning and posting his “Baseball-Hero” essay, immediately after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
In closing, I appreciate being afforded another opportunity to “dialogue” with you, Vince-of-All-Truth.
Tucker is interviewing Nick Fuentes a notorious anti-Semite and bigot!
Not only does Fuentes deny the holocaust. He even blasphemed the Virgin Mary comparing his own perverse desire for a 16 yr old bride (he is 30)to the Holy Spirit selecting Mary to be Mother of God because she is “Pliant and fresh”.
I cannot even…..
Sorry but Tucker is clearly a vicious Jew hater.
He promotes Jew hate and he is dividing the Republican Party.
He is not he good guy. At least not anymore.
Sad really.
I was once a big fan…
“Antisemitism is a malignancy in society. Throughout modern political history, rising antisemitism has been an unmistakable marker of cultural decay. ”
********
Exactly. The canary in the coal mine.
George: I wonder if Tucker Carlson makes a distinction between the Jews as a nation (Israel) and as an ethnic and religious group? Perhaps there is more than one rabbit hole!
Those rabbit holes all lead to the same place.
The Jews and the Palestinians have an equal right to a homeland. God gave the Jews theirs, we have the ancient documentation to prove it. The Palestinians, on the other hand, since the 1972 Olympics, have freely chosen a path of cowardly terrorism and murder to show themselves to the entire world, who and what they are.
Liberals, in our present day, ooze with affection and sympathy towards the poor, abused Palestinians. To many, the Palestinian massacre of Jews on Oct 7th is a fallacy not to he believed.
Unless and until the Palestinian people choose a concrete and substantive path toward peaceful coexistence with Israel, the Palestinians won’t have a homeland.
In other words, they have to demonstrate that they are mature enough to manage a state. A Palestinian State cannot be merely awarded. They have to earn it.