Editing Nostra aetate (section)

====Cardinal Cicognani's "middle path" revision====

[[File:Massimo V Hakim.png|240px|thumb|right|Arms of Arab Catholic leader Archbishop [[Maximos V Hakim]] of the [[Melkite Greek Catholic Church]], who reported to Paul VI, warning of alleged "de-Christianisation" under the Israeli government.]]

In the United States, where Western political power was centralised in the 1960s and most of the American Bishops represented at the council were staunch supporters of a pro-Jewish statement and a declaration on religious liberty—with the notable exception of Cardinal [[James Francis McIntyre]]—there was anxiety about the way the Second Session had ended voiced at the [[National Catholic Welfare Council]]. During Paul VI's visit to East Jerusalem, he travelled briefly through what was the [[State of Israel]] but was bogged down defending the record of Pius XII in light of ''The Deputy'' and made a speech hoping for Jews to convert to Christianity.<ref name="roddy"/> While there, [[Maximos V Hakim]], the [[Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch|Archbishop of Jerusalem]] from the [[Melkite Greek Catholic Church]] passed the Pope a document purporting to show "a slow but deliberate process of de-Christianization" initiated by the Israeli government.<ref name="roddy"/> The concern of the American Bishops about the fate of the document was shared by the two secular Jewish points-of-contact for the American Bishops and thus the Vatican; Zacariah Shuster of the AJC and [[Joseph L. Lichten]] of the [[Anti-Defamation League]] of [[B’nai B’rith]] (Frith Becker of the [[World Jewish Congress]] also kept an eye on the proceedings, but took a more backseat role after the embarrassment caused by the Wardi affair).<ref name="roddy"/> On the contested deicide issue, Cardinals [[Joseph Ritter]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|p=197}}</ref> [[Albert Gregory Meyer]], Richard Cushing<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=197–98}}</ref> and Francis Spellman were particularly insistent on supporting the Jewish position, as were Archbishop [[Patrick O'Boyle (American bishop)|Patrick O'Boyle]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=199–201}}</ref> and Bishop [[Stephen Aloysius Leven]];<ref>{{Harvnb|Oesterreicher|1986|pp=198–99}}</ref> they also had the support of the [[Catholic Media Association]].<ref name="roddy"/> Some hope had been restored after six AJC members, headed up by Rose Sperry, had an audience with Paul VI in Rome and he personally agreed with the sentiment of Cardinal Spellman on the deicide issue.<ref name="roddy"/>

A new draft document was prepared between January and September 1964. Paul VI had given the SECU orders to make mention of [[Islam]] and a general reference to non-Christian religions (in the hopes of alleviating the concerns of the [[Arab world]]; both the Eastern Catholics and the Arab governments).<ref name="roddy"/> Also all reference to the much contested "deicide" issue would be removed due to the concerns the conservative faction had with it. This posed a problem for Cardinal Bea and his ''periti'', as, if he agreed to making the document a general one about non-Christian religions, then it could be very easily argued that its drafting should fall under the newly created [[Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue|Secretariat for Non-Christians]] under Cardinal [[Paolo Marella]], a conservative opponent of Bea.<ref name="roddy"/> And if the SECU refused to make changes, it would naturally go back to Cardinal Cicognani's Coordinating Committee (a Curialist, upholding the Pope's agenda). Eventually, Bea agreed to remove the term "deicide", but deferred to the Coordinating Committee on adding statements about other non-Christian religions. With the document now under the Coordinating Committee, some restructuring took place: discreetly avoiding letting the American Cardinals know the details, especially. The new version highlighted, like the very first draft, Christianity as heirs of the Prophets, Patriarchs and covenant of the [[Old Testament]], it expressed hope that the Jews will eventually convert to the Catholic Church (and thus Catholic sermons and catechesis, should avoid denigrating Jews). It also stated that the Church, "just as it severely disapproves of any wrong inflicted upon human beings everywhere, it also deplores and condemns hatred and maltreatment of Jews."<ref name="roddy"/>

A report was “leaked” to ''[[The New York Times]]'' on 12 June 1964 reporting that the deicide issue had been cut out of the document. Whole sections of the confidential document turned up in the ''[[New York Herald Tribune]]''.<ref name="roddy"/> According to Edward Kaplan, the author of ''Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972'', the AJC had secured a secret “mole” or "double-agent" within Bea's Secretariat, an eccentric Jesuit priest, [[Malachi Martin]].<ref name="kapp">{{Harvnb|Kaplan|2008|pp=243}}</ref> As part of his activities, Martin leaked pieces of confidential information about the progress of draft documents to the AJC and the New York media (in particular ''The New York Times'', the ''New York Herald Tribune'' and ''[[Time Magazine]]'') under the name “Pushkin”.<ref name="kapp"/><ref name="roddy"/> Shuster referred to Martin in reports as "Heschel's young friend". In May 1964, an insider “tell-all account” about the council was published as ''"The Pilgrim"'', under the pseudonym of "Michael Serafian".<ref name="kap">{{Harvnb|Kaplan|2008|pp=254}}</ref> This work was released by Malachi Martin, at the behest of Abraham Joshua Heschel, through [[Roger Straus]]’ [[Farrar, Straus and Giroux]] publishing company.<ref name="kap"/> Disparaging to Christianity, it claimed “no one conscious of what has made modern Europe can deny that the pyres and the crematoria, the mephitic smoke and stench of the extermination camps in Nazi Germany, were, if not the logical conclusion, at least one extremist consequence of the normal Christian attitude to the Jews.”<ref>{{Harvnb|Serafian|1964|pp=49}}</ref> Around this time, Msgr [[George G. Higgins]] arranged an audience with Paul VI for [[Arthur Goldberg]], the [[United States Ambassador to the United Nations]]. And then Cardinal Cushing arranged a meeting between Paul VI and Shuster, with Heschel also present. The Pope and Heschel clashed as the latter demanded the topics rejecting the deicide charge and blood guilt be reinserted and forbidding all Christian proselytising to Jews, to which Paul VI would not agree. Shuster somewhat embarrassed, spoke to Paul VI more diplomatically in French to cut Heschel out (as a secular man, Shuster was less concerned about the proselytising issue).<ref name="roddy"/> Like Jules Isaac before him, Heschel invoked [[the Holocaust]], in an article from September 1964 he wrote, "I am ready to go to [[Auschwitz]] any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death."<ref name="hesc"/>

[[File:CICOGNANI AMLETO GIOVANNI (+1973).jpg|240px|thumb|right|Cardinal [[Amleto Giovanni Cicognani]]'s "middle path" re-drafted version of September 1964, favoured by Paul VI, alienated both sides in the debate.]]

Paul VI made his position known on the general direction of the council, with his August 1964 encyclical ''[[Ecclesiam suam]]'', in which he tried to portray a cautious reformist position.<ref name="es">[https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html Paul VI. (August 6, 1964). ''Ecclesiam suam'', Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Church. Vatican.va]</ref><ref name="roddy"/> He warned about [[relativism]] and even [[Modernism in the Catholic Church|modernism]], laying out a dialogue with the world which was still directed towards the ideal of conversion of non-Catholics, but on a practical level advocated cooperation for defending "religious liberty, human brotherhood, good culture, social welfare, and civil order."<ref name="roddy"/><ref name="es"/> For the first time, during the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council, the contents of the draft schema "On the Jews and Non-Christians", was actually discussed on the floor by Council Fathers from 28 September 1964 and lasted two days. The "middle-ground" approach of the Paul VI-Cicognani revision (with the word deicide removed and mention of Islam, [[Hinduism]] and [[Buddhism]] included), while trying to please all factions managed to alienate all sides in the process. Cardinal [[Ernesto Ruffini]], Archbishop of Palermo representing the conservative faction, concerned with Catholic doctrinal integrity in rejecting the document, warned against "Talmudic teachings"<ref>{{Harvnb|Gilbert|1968|pp=151}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Foundation for the Study of Plural Societies|1975|pp=58}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|National Catholic Welfare Conference|1965|pp=69}}</ref> and stated at the podium; "It is clear that Christians love Jews, for such is the law of Christians, but Jews should be exhorted to cease hating us and regarding us as contemptible animals."<ref name="roddy"/><ref name="dny">[https://dignityny.org/sites/default/files/ADVENT%20SERIES%20Session%203.pdf DNY. (2012). Remembering the Second Vatican Council: Second Intersession, December 1963 to September 1964. Dignity NY]</ref> As ever, Catholic leaders from the Arab world also spoke out against any document focusing exclusively on the Jews without any mention of the Muslims, including: Cardinal Patriarch [[Ignatius Gabriel I Tappouni]] of the [[Syriac Catholic Church]], Patriarch [[Maximos IV Saigh]] and Bishop [[Joseph Tawil]] of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and Archbishop [[Pietro Sfair]] of the [[Maronite Church]]. Sfair was instrumental during the drafting of the [[Second Vatican Council]] document [[Nostra Aetate]] to highlight the [[House of Mary]] (in Ephesus, Turkey) and Marian devotion as a matter of shared interest between Christians and Muslims.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Stackaruk |first=Christian |date=2022 |title=Retrieving MENA Catholics' Contributions to 'Nostra Aetate' |url=https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/50b94051-501a-456c-bfb6-83118062f124/content  |work=thesis  |degree=PhD in Theological Studies |location=Toronto, Ontario  |publisher=University of St. Michael's College and the University of Toronto  |access-date=April 16, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=George-Tvrtkovic |first=Rita |date=Autumn 2017 |title=Merye Ana Evi, Marian Devotion and the Making of "Nostra aetate" 3| url=https://www.jsotr.org/stable/45178778 |journal=The Catholic Historical Review |volume=103 |issue=4 |pages=755–781|doi=10.1353/cat.2017.0186|access-date=June 30, 2024}}</ref> <blockquote>Archbishop P. Sfair of the Maronite Rite (Rome) considered the reference which the declaration ''De non christianis'' made to the Muslims'adoration of the one and remunerating God as insufficient. Mention should also be made of Mohammed's affirmation of the virginal conception and birth of Christ through Mary, the most exalted among women. The Archbishop recalled the respect with which the earliest Muslims treated the Christians and the Christian beliefs. He insisted that the declaration should give greater consideration to that which the Muslims believed, to the truths which they proposed for belief, than to their less essential cultural factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Farrugia |first=Joseph |date=1990 |title=The Evolution of the Conciliar Texts Regarding the Muslims | url=https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/36368/1/MT%2C_41%282%29_-_full.PDF|journal=Melita Theologica |volume=XLI |issue=2 |pages=115–139 |doi=     |access-date=September 20, 2024 |quote="Archbishop P. Sfair of the Maronite Rite (Rome) considered the reference which the declaration made to the Muslims'adoration of the one and remunerating God as insufficient. Mention should also be made of Mohammed's affirmation of the virginal conception and birth of Christ through Mary, the most exalted among women. The Archbishop recalled the respect with which the earliest Muslims treated the Christians and the Christian beliefs. He insisted that the declaration should give greater consideration to that which the Muslims believed, to the truths which they proposed for belief, than to their less essential cultural factors." |quote-page=125-126}}</ref>  </blockquote> 

The combined liberalising factions; headed up by the Rhineland Alliance and the American Cardinals; held different approaches, with ultimately the same goal in mind. One group, consisting of Cardinals Joseph Ritter of St. Louis, Albert Gregory Meyer of Chicago, [[Franz König]] of Vienna and Achille Liénart of Lille (supported by Bishops [[Léon Arthur Elchinger|Elchinger]] and [[Sergio Méndez Arceo|Méndez Arceo]]) took to the podium and spoke clearly against the "watered down" Paul VI-Cicognani revision and supported a full return to the previous draft authored by Cardinal Bea and the SECU, with the repudiation of the deicide theme against Jews of any generation clearly included.<ref name="roddy"/> The other group, consisting of Cardinals Richard Cushing of Boston, Giacomo Lercaro of Bologna and [[Paul-Émile Léger]] of Montreal (supported by Bishops [[:nl:Pieter Nierman|Nierman]], [[:nl:Jules-Victor Daem|Daem]], [[Lorenz Jaeger|Jaeger]], [[Philip Pocock|Pocock]] and O'Boyle) proposed instead that the new draft should be accepted, to get its foot in the door, but amended to cover the deicide issue and an explicitly condemnation of what they called "persecutions and injustices" against Jews throughout the ages, to the present day.<ref name="roddy"/> Two Americans, Bishop Leven and Archbishop O'Boyle, took the most radical position on the topic and proposed the document should repudiate any hope of Jewish conversion to Christianity, flirting with themes of [[universal salvation]] and [[dual-covenant theology]] respectively.<ref name="roddy"/> Cardinal [[John Heenan (cardinal)|John Heenan]], the English [[Archbishop of Westminster]], also spoke in favour of the liberal faction on the issue at a press conference the following day. On the deicide question, he admitted that “Jesus Christ was condemned to death by the [[Sanhedrin]],” but "the Jewish people as such cannot be held guilty for the death of Christ." He affirmed to "do all [he] could to satisfy the desires of [his] Jewish friends."<ref name="roddy"/> The document was sent back to the SECU for amendments on 29 September 1964 with over 70 suggestions.