< Back to front page Text size +

In Boston, Israeli diplomat speaks of Rome

Posted by Michael Paulson June 19, 2009 02:02 PM

Ambassador_Lewy_at_Boston_College.jpg


The past year has been an eventful one for Jewish-Catholic relations – there were controversies over the revival of an allegedly anti-Semitic Good Friday prayer and the lifting of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, and then there was the visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Israel. In the middle of it all was Mordechay Lewy, a longtime Israeli diplomat who serves as Israel's ambassador to the Holy See.

Lewy, who previously represented Israel in Germany, Sweden and Thailand, visited Boston this week, primarily to speak at a conference at Boston College, and I spoke with him Friday morning at his hotel in Newton.

Here are edited excerpts of our conversation:

Q: Why do relations with the Vatican matter?
A: We can not afford, as a Jewish state, and we can not afford as a Jewish people, to continue on after 1,900 years of bad experience, traumatic experience with the Christian world. Now, if we take the Christian world as a whole, it's quite an amorphic body. But at least if we have a well known structure, as the Catholic Church, with a top echelon of it in Vatican, I think that would be a missed opportunity not to get along with them as much as we can, knowing that we will not ever be able to come to terms on all aspects the questions which lie between us.
Q: You've been at the Vatican for a year. What have you learned?
A: From the books you can see that it is an absolute monarchy, but it is not. Far, far from that. Structural absolute monarchy doesn't mean that the monarch is trying to exercise, on every day basis, his authority. You are reducing your authority if you are using it too often. In military terms, if you have a power of deterrence, keep the power, don't use it, because after using it, everybody will know what you are worth. You can also (apply that) with authority. If you are really applying it all the time, you are likely to get a lot of frictions, and by that you are losing at least a degree of the authority you had at the beginning. And I think the pope is very well aware of that.

Q: What do you actually do on a day to day basis?
A: (laughs) Try to convince Jews that the menorah is not any more in the cellar of the Vatican Museum. I'm not joking. I've had very many requests of that kind. To intervene, to find it, and to bring it back in a diplomatic pouch. There is a legend that says the menorah from the Second Temple, after the destruction, was the war booty of Titus, brought to Rome, was shown where war victories were shown, in a temple of peace. It's shown in the Arch of Titus.

Q: What else?
A: There are a lot of issues between the Vatican and Israel where the Vatican is coming to us. Often I am a go between, as many ambassadors are. Most of the requests are in the realm of the broad concept of religious freedom, which Israelis subscribe to, but theory is one thing, and another thing is how to implement it.

Visa issues are a very serious problem, and I can not say we are solving the problem, but we are alleviating it. It is one thing to come to Israel as a tourist, it's not a problem at all, but another thing is if a clergyman would like to stay more than three months. And if a Syrian Catholic would like to come, or is invited by his church, to assume a priestly post in Jerusalem, he has Syrian documents, he will be not admitted, as long as Syria is defined as enemy country, he will not be able, in spite of the fact that there is religious freedom. So this is a problem which we have to see how we can alleviate it.

Q: Does Israel have an interest in preserving a Christian population?
A: It's not a question. We are obliged to. To be a holy land is not only a blessing, it's a burden. And if you are saying 'holy to three monotheistic religions,' it's an obligation to make it happen, or to preserve it as it is, but not to work against it.

Q: What is your assessment of the pope's visit?
A. The visit was a success. No doubt.

Q: There was some criticism of the way he characterized the Holocaust.
A: People who were expressing those disappointments, which to my mind were unjustified, were on second or third thought retracting them. It didn't cast a real shadow on the visit. It was filling the columns in the press for one or two days. The speeches of the pope were of enormous importance to everybody, not only to us, but to everybody. What he contributed at Yad Vashem was a completely different approach which was an enrichment to the culture of memory, and it was almost a wake-up from an unexpected corner for people to think a little bit differently, and not to expect a ritual. This pope is not one who is getting into existing patterns of rituals – it's not a challenge for him intellectually – so he would like really to set his mind and contribute his own thoughts, which are rather deep thoughts about what Yad Vashem means.

This pope…didn’t come as a German pope, and this was a second misreading of him – I never saw him as a German pope, although we communicate in German with each other – he wasn't elected as a German pope, and he doesn't see himself as a German pope, no matter what the Germans say. So it's more through the head, the theological mind…He's not a newcomer to sort out what kind of approach Catholics should have toward Judaism as a result of the Second Vatican Council. He has contributed a lot, and we have a friend in him. This is often misunderstood, because he's a conservative. He is an example that you can be a conservative in terms of theological approaches, (and) also in terms of what he calls the hermeneutic of continuity after the Second Vatican Council, and then, all of a sudden, still be very friendly to Jews. This is a little bit surprising for many liberals within the Catholic Church who feel very much frustrated and think that the main prerequisite of this liberal spirit is their approach to Judaism. We need to work a lot to make them understand that continuity doesn’t mean necessarily to have anti-Jewish approach.

Q: What about the controversy over the Catholic Church's relationship with the Society of Saint Pius X?
A: This is a very, very severe problem. Matters of excommunication are not our problem – we should not interfere. But if these internal matters are affecting the public sphere, to the extent that they affect our own attitudes and emotions…Williamson's reconciliation, without the Holocaust denial, would not have made this affair sexy to everyone. The Holocaust denying was the point which brought the whole Jewish interference, which was not into the internal matters of the church but to the Holocaust denying…This was a rare case where he (the pope) admits mishaps in the church.

Q: Is this issue over?
A: No. It's not over when it comes to the effort of bringing them (the Lefebvrites) back to the church. I don’t think that many of them would like to go back. They are likely to become a daily provocation, or an embarrassment at least. They are going to consecrate new priests. They are conducting negotiations, but they seem not to want any results.

But this affair was for us, at least in one sense, productive. It was clearly said by the church that no Holocaust denier can assume any function as bishop…Now the parameters are clear. We got the clarification which we needed, because they are going to embarrass the church indefinitely, to my mind, because they don’t want to go back, some of them. This is my read.

Q: Does Israel have a role to play in the canonization of Pius XII?
A: Canonization is not our concern. We don’t believe in beatification. What concerns us is the historical role of Pius XII. This is a real issue which has been, to my mind, deliberately, but still mistakenly, combined with the matter.

Q: Do you have a position on Pius XII's historic role?
A: Historically speaking, I think he was neither a hero nor a villain. It is probably the right thing to think of a more balanced view of him. The problem is that we are looking at him through the filter of a post-conciliar church. He is definitely a protagonist of the pre-conciliar church, and the pre-conciliar church has, as its main assignment, to seek all possible means to salvation for its own flock. He is not a pope for the Jews; he is not a pope for the Mohammedans; he is not a pope for everyone who was not Catholic. 'My main task is to save the souls of the Catholic Church.' This is why he did a concordat with the Germans. He didn't make a concordat because he was Hitler's pope. This is a mistaken concept. He did it in order to survive, to make it happen that the church can survive a godless regime. This was the term that they used. He tried also to make a concordat with the Soviet Union, but the Russian Orthodox Church didn't like this idea. It is wrong to look for any affinity between him and the Nazis.

It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church, they hid in Roman monasteries, in the Vatican itself people were hidden. To look for written evidence, an order of the pope, well…this is odd. This is not how it works.

Q: So I hear you explaining why he was not a villain. Why was he not a hero?
A: He was very, very timid. He was a diplomat. This is why the curia is very much advocating for him as a saint. He was brought up politically by Benedict XV, who was the protagonist of neutrality during the First World War, wanting to keep up relations with everyone in order to get involved in mediation, humanitarian aid, good things. This is the concept with which Pius XII, as a pupil of Benedict XV, approached the Second World War. He misread, completely, the situation. He can not be blamed for it. He was who he was, with shortcomings. To be neutral meant for him to be quiet, to rely on quiet diplomacy. The main argument is why he was silent, not why he didn't help. And by the way, after the war, he was silent as well. If we take the whole tenure, before the war and after the war, he was silent all the time. He never spoke up. He was saying…the church was victim of those regimes. With that mindset, there's not much space to have a place to have another victim, if you feel yourself a victim. And, by the way, that's our problem in the Middle East.

(Photo, by Gary Gilbert/Boston College, shows Mordechay Lewy, the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See, speaking at Boston College on Wednesday, June 17, 2009.)

  • CommentComment
  • Email E-mail

Email this article

Invalid email address
Invalid email address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

13 comments so far...
  1. Jesus is Peace = Silence is Golden

    Pax comes only from doing the Will of God

    Posted by Alba, Boston June 19, 09 08:28 PM
  1. It's refreshing to hear someone so sensible discussing such delicate topics.

    Posted by Chris June 19, 09 09:42 PM
  1. Overall, I found the opinions of Ambassador Lewy to be balanced and wise. I found the questions of Mr. Paulson to be about the more superficial aspects of Jewish-Catholics relations, but that is of the nature of the 'man bites dog' nature of reporting.

    I take issue with only the following. I am surprised that the ambassador has a problem with a Syriac Christian priest staying for longer than 3 months in Israel, because Syria is a nasty player in Middle East politics, something I agree with. The Syriac Christian priest is not an agent of Hezbollan or Hamas, so should not be penalized because of the whackos in Damascus. the putative priest's priesthood is far more important than his Syrian-ness. This is an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face, and pushes Christians who otherwise would be alligned with the Jews more toward the Palestinian corner. I doubt that any rabbi is denied a visa to live in Vatican City for more than 3 months.

    Finally, the ambassador way over-rates the Williamson affair. The main point is that Williamson is a nut. that is why he was part of the secessionist Lefevbrite movement in the first place. He and the rest of the Lebevbritists were de-excommunicated more for their spiritual good, than anything about their absurd earthly opinions. I would bet my life that the Pope had not heard of the nut's anti-Holocaust opinions. You must remember that with over a billion Catholics, the Pope has about 3X the constituents of Barack Obama, and the Pope is close to twice the age of Obama. Thus the Pope relies on delegation for 99% of practical questions. The ambassador is confusing practical with theoretical questions. Practically, re-integrating Williamson without having seen the Swedish television story (and how many watch that channel?) was a blunder; but far more important is that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is 1000% in favor of Judaism and Israel, and their only other good ally in the US are the fundamentalist Protestant Christians, so best not to overemphasize a flea, when the elephant of Catholicism is solidly with Judaism and Israel.

    Posted by gaudete June 19, 09 09:52 PM
  1. He was a commanding speaker this evening at Erev Shabbat services in Brookline's Temple Ohabei Shalom. Mordechay Lewy brought home the point the the true divide is that the Catholic faithful can not address the fact that the people Israel are G-d's people. Christian/Catholic history has struggled with that every day in the Common Era.

    One of the best questions had to do with the historical conversion of Europe to either Christian or Islam tenants and why it did not become "Jewish".

    Mordechay Lewy once again called forth the tenant of Judiasm that there is no prostilization - unlike Christian and Islam clerics.

    Posted by DanFromBoston June 19, 09 10:17 PM
  1. When all the jews and muslims become Christian there will be peace.

    Posted by Jack Higgins June 20, 09 07:38 AM
  1. Hey Jack, preferably Episcopalian. Just pitching for the home team!

    Posted by Jane X Jones June 20, 09 07:40 AM
  1. Jack,

    Your statement is equally was eerie as DanFromBoston's statement about Lewy stating that Catholics can't address the fact that jews are god's people. Both leave me scratching my head.

    Posted by avi cohen June 20, 09 10:16 AM
  1. And you can see what has happened to the Epicopalian church ... sadly, self-imposed destruction. Which is not a criticism, a sad chapter for Christianity.

    Dan's mindset is stuck in the middle ages. Not much of a plug for ecuminism.

    Posted by CnocMhuire June 20, 09 10:29 AM
  1. Hey, Jack and Jane - preferably Unitarian.

    Must agree with gaudete. There has to be a place for Coptic and other Christians in Israel, even though there be no place for Jews and other Israelis in many Arabic countries. The question is, how does Israel confirm these are men and women of God, and not agents of Hamas?

    A great interview, Mr. Paulson. Loved the Ambassador's perspective on Hitler's pope.

    Posted by reindeergirl June 20, 09 11:39 AM
  1. jack
    get a brain
    even your "messiah" was a jew

    Posted by ken marks June 20, 09 12:52 PM
  1. “Pushes Christians who otherwise would be aligned with the Jews more toward the Palestinian corner.”

    On the contrary the Vatican as a political entity is not solidly with Judaism and Israel. It has grave concerns for its flock among Palestinian Christians who find themselves under military occupation on one hand and a militant fundamentalist Islam on the other (much like Chaldean Catholics). The creation of the state of Israel has been as destructive for Arab Christian communities in historic Palestine as it has been for the general Palestinian population. It does not help that American fundamentalist Protestants see right through the indigenous Christians of the region when they back the most extreme of Israel nationalism to the hilt as fulfillment of the end time’s theology. The Vatican as regards interstate diplomacy on the Israeli Palestinian question is politically far to the left of most all Israeli political parties, AIPAC, the Republican party and American fundamentalist Protestants.

    Posted by Mícheál June 20, 09 09:16 PM
  1. Posted by gaudete June 19, 09 09:52 PM

    You really think that Ratzinger had no idea about Williamson's comments given his previous position as enforcer of all dogma? I can't imagine how he didn't know.

    Posted by OnTheLeft June 21, 09 12:38 AM
  1. I am with OTL on this one, gaudete. Given Ratzinger's pre Papal job description I find it highly unlikely he did not know the full story on Williamson. I would also take someone who is being considered for anti-excommunication and make sure they were thoroughly vetted, and cannot see Cardinal Ratzinging not aware, and by the time of his Papacy, the structure around him... HAD to be aware. No free pass for Il Papa on this one.

    Posted by Kai June 23, 09 07:49 AM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

Blogger

Michael Paulson covers religion for The Boston Globe. He shared in the Pulitzer Prize in 2003, won the Mike Berger, Templeton and Supple awards in 2008, and is a four-time winner of the Wilbur Award.
E-mail mpaulson@globe.com.

views

Harvey_Cox_cow.JPGHarvey Cox, the Hollis professor of divinity at Harvard University, marks his retirement by asserting a little-used right of his professorship -- to graze a cow in Harvard Yard. Photo, by Barry Chin of the Globe staff, taken on Sept. 10, 2009 in Cambridge, Mass.

archives