Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, OSM: [^E-mail: jpawlikowski@assumption-chgo.org] Father John Pawlikowski is Professor of Social Ethics at Chicago Theological Union and the author of fifteen books. He has been a participant/speaker in Christian/Jewish/Muslim dialogues in Spain, Rome, Haifa, Israel and throughout the United States. His scholarly interests include the theological and ethical aspects of the Christian-Jewish relationship and public ethics. A leading figure in the Christian-Jewish dialogue, he is president of the International Council of Christians and Jews and author of Christ in the Light of the Christian Jewish Dialogue and co-editor with Judith Banki of Ethics in the Shadow of the Holocaust.

Presentations

The Holocaust: Does it Have Significance for Ethics Today?

The academic study of ethics, in light of the experience of the Holocaust, has witnessed rapid development in the last decade. In addition to research into ethical decisionmaking during the Holocaust itself in such volumes as Rab Bennett's Under the .Shadow of the Swastika: The Moral Dilemmas of Resistance and Collaboration in Hitler’s Europe, more general reflections on the significance of the Holocaust for contemporary ethics have come to the fore from Jewish and Christian scholars alike. There have also been voices such as Herbert Hirsch who have questioned whether we can learn anything from the Holocaust in terms of the moral challenge facing us today given the sui generis nature of that event as well as the immense complexity of modern society. (123-132).

I personally stand with those who do find the experience of the Holocaust significant for ethical reflection in today's globalized society. But Hirsch's pessimism does serve a purpose in reminding us that there is no simplistic transition from the situation of the Shoah into today's complex social situation.

In beginning any study of ethics in the shadow of the Holocaust a caution is always in order. Such an academic study can never substitute for continued re­membrance of the victims of the Nazis. Elie Wiesel's oft-quoted statement that to forget the actual victims is in fact to kill them a second time must always remain implanted in our personal and communal templates. Otherwise such an academic study can become a rather barren exercise.

As we face the ethical challenges of our globalized society today three basic perspectives must become foundational for our reflections: (1) respect for basic human dignity must supplant any notion that, only correct belief entitles one to fundamental rights; (2) our universe of moral concern must be broadened beyond the parameters of our own faith and national communities; and (3) acknowledgment of past failings on the part of our religious and national communities is a necessary pre-condition for development of the internal integrity necessary for genuine and consistent moral commitment.

Let me offer a brief commentary on each of these perspectives. For centuries in my own Roman Catholic tradition correct belief was an absolute requirement for full human dignity. After a bitter struggle at the II Vatican Council over the document on religious liberty, Catholicism underwent a major turn­about in its understanding. In the vision of Vatican II human dignity, not merely right belief, became the fundamental cornerstone of a just society. To be sure, belief remains important. But no longer is it the absolute barometer for human rights. In some ways this reality was also recognized in secular society. As the late Gerhard Riegner has shown in his memoirs, the experience of the Nazi era was crucial in the development of international legal codes on human rights and genocide after the end of World War II.

The lack of a human rights perspective significantly curtained the Catholic institutional response to Nazism. Now that we are corning to recognize that, at the level of institutional Christianity, fear of liberalism and concern for the loss of the Church's influence over the public order were in fact stronger motives for acquiescence or even collaboration with Nazism and Fascism than classical Christian antisemitism itself, we are in a position to ask seriously whether the Church's response would have been different if those Christian voices who advocated incorporation of dimensions of the liberal vision into Christianity, including liberalism's human rights vision, had been heeded. And what if Church leaders had made a concerted effort to establish a working relationship with the liberal opposition to Nazism despite that opposition's widespread hostility to religious belief`? There are those who are asking, and I support their question, whether the return to fundamentalist religious perspectives in nearly all religious traditions might well erode the commitment to basic human dignity as the ground of global society resulting from the ethical reflections on the Nazi era during the past decade or so. There could be such stress on “particularistic identity” that the developing focus on common human dignity may be lost. That would clearly represent a failure to take the moral challenge of the Holocaust with utter seriousness.

I recognize that hindsight can never reproduce the difficulty of the actual challenge faced by the churches during the Nazi era. Still I must ask whether some embrace of liberalism's fundamental stress on human rights by Catholicism and other churches might not have generated the possibility of an ant-Nazi coalition between the churches and the liberal secularists despite the latter's strong critique of religion. Clearly the unmitigated opposition to the values espoused by liberalism, including its stress on human rights, undercut such a possible coalition, particularly in the case of the Catholic Church. There were Catholic voices such as Felicite de Lamennais and Henri Lacordaire who urged such an integration of certain liberal values, including the focus on human rights, into mainstream Catholic consciousness. But they were berated for such proposals, much to the ultimate detriment of the Church.

Whether such a coalition would have resulted in the survival of many more Jews, Poles and Roma is an open question. Some prominent historians such as Michael Marrus and Gunther Lewy do not believe that active, public opposition to Nazism on the part of the Christian leadership would have made much difference in terms of the survival of people targeted for extermination by the Nazis, principally the Jews. But on the level of protecting the Church's basic moral integrity, it likely would have proven quite significant. This is a point I first learned from the teacher who first introduced me to issues of the Church and the Holocaust as an undergraduate student at Loyola University in Chicago. That professor was Dr. Edward Gargan, an historian, who taught a very popular course on modem German history. Speaking as a committed Catholic, he felt that the Church had seriously compromised its future moral integrity by not standing up more directly and openly to Hitler whatever the impact and consequences might have been. That perspective remains deeply ingrained in me until today.

Another aspect of the human rights question in light of the Holocaust is how we state our own faith understanding. Michael Berenbaum has made this point quite strongly. (239) If we do so in a way that fundamentally denigrates another religious tradition, as was the case for centuries especially in terms of the Jewish tradition, we are transforming our faith into an instrument of potential violence. We have seen far too often in past history and even in the present day how powerful and destructive such religious identification can be in terms of instigating or abetting social violence.

Violent religious language can greatly contribute to softening a society for genocide. I would argue that this is precisely what Christian antisemitism did during the Nazi era. Religion remains a powerful force in many present-day societies. If religious language in a given society continues to demean people who do not share the dominant faith system and even denies them full rights of citizenship it certainly opens the door for physical assaults on such groups in times of social tension. On the contrary, positive religious language about the "religious other" can serve as a barrier against such assaults. It is especially necessary in the complex national societies that globalization has produced.

The emphasis on human rights as a central moral imperative after the Holocaust also impacts our understanding of ecclesiology. Any post-Holocaust definition of the Church (or any religious tradition for that matter) must make human rights integral to that definition. The vision of the Church that needs to prevail is one that sees the survival of all persons as integral to the authentic survival of the Church itself. The desire for self-preservation, as legitimate as it is, can never be sustained by indifference to human rights abuses against the outside "other." I have argued that Pope Pius XII was regrettably affected by such a "limited" ecclesiology as he tried to keep the institutional Church operational under very trying political circumstances. (Palikowski, “The Papacy,” 56-69.)

There definitely appears to be some understanding of the need for a shift in ecclesiological vision after the Holocaust. I can cite several examples, such as the stance of many of the churches in South Africa in the face of the brutal apartheid political system, the strong support given by local church leaders to the revolution that brought down the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and the courageous stance taken by the Catholic bishops of Malawi when the late Dr. Hastings Banda threatened the human rights of many of the country's citizens. The last situation is especially relevant because the bishops were willing to risk institutional church survival when President Banda made a serious threat to murder them and their catechists if they continued in their protest on behalf of people who, in most instances, were not Catholic or even Christian. Clearly ecclesiology with a human rights bent had become part of the episcopal template in Malawi.

But other situations show the need for considerable development of a human rights-based ecclesiology. In the Philippines and in South Africa Catholic bishops had to go against the papal representatives who urged caution and even support for the existing oppressive regimes. The situations in countries such as Haiti and Argentina likewise show a Catholic leadership far down the learning curve in terms of moral lessons in light of the Holocaust.

The second ethical principle emerging from reflections on the Holocaust experience involves the extension of our parameters of moral concern. It follows directly from the first principle just discussed. The well-being and even the survival of our own community can never come at the indifference to the sufferings of other. As some Holocaust commentators have put it, we can­not make others "unfortunate expendables" in the process of self-preservation, as many people in the churches seemed to do with regard to the Jews during the period of the Holocaust. Ignoring the plight of others may not be as heinous an offense as outright hatred, but it remains morally unacceptable nonetheless. Allowing some people to become "expendable," may in fact rebound eventually on those who take on such an attitude. We too may at some point may find ourselves "expendable" by some other dominant group if we allow such marginalization of human dignity to go unchallenged. Put another way, the greatest protection of our own human dignity comes ultimately through the uncompromising effort to protect the dignity of all.

There is another dimension of the need for expansion of moral concern as a response to the Holocaust. It has to do with what I have termed the "neutralization" of people, particularly those we may regard rightly or wrongly as our enemy. I remained convinced that religion has a vital role to play in insuring that groups in a society are not "neutralized" in terms of their fundamental humanity. The Holocaust scholar, Henry Friedlander, showed some years ago how the neutral language in reporting daily death counts in the Nazi extermination camps paralleled the language used by the United States military in reporting Vietnamese casualties during the Vietnam War. (103-113) I myself have examined some of the death camp reports on their daily "activities." If one had no inkling from where they came, one could easily assume they were reporting on the daily production of radios in a manufacturing facility rather than on the daily death count of Nazi victims. The reports were totally devoid of any language that would indicate that human beings were involved at the level of "production."

To understand how easily such "neutralization" of victims, especially those regarded as enemies, can infiltrate human consciousness I would report on a situation in the Hyde Park neighborhood at the University of Chicago where my home institution is located during the Vietnam War era. The Museum of Science and Industry, at the time the most visited tourist attraction in the Midwest, put up an exhibit sponsored by the U.S. armed forces which depicted a mock Vietnamese village. As a pioneering interactive museum, the exhibit had a "hands-on" dimension for children. They could enter a recreated American helicopter gunship and shoot down at the Vietnamese village. It took a group of local clergy people one night in jail to force the closure of the exhibit. This total insensitivity on the part of museum and military officials reflected a much wider disturbing phenomenon as the sanctioning of the term "gooks" for the Vietnamese people which robbed them of all human dignity and hence greatly reduced the sense of moral culpability in the process of killing them.

The Iraqi war has generated some similar patterns. Torture and human degradation of prisoners was given at least tacit approval by some military commanders. And the wider public, whether in the United States or in the United Kingdom, has shown little or no moral concern over the high number of Iraqi civilian casualties during this conflict. This total moral indifference extends to the church leadership in both countries who have never challenged their membership on this dimension of contemporary warfare.

Historian Peter Hayes of Northwestern University has further illuminated this "expendable" category of people during the Nazi era in his continuing research on German business leaders during the period of the Third Reich. Hayes concludes that in the end German big business was willing "to walk over corpses." The importance of economic success gradually eroded any sense of the human dignity of those relegated to forced labor in German industry.

There were many factors internal to Germany that contributed to this process of moral numbing. But above all, says Hayes, was the fact that "the Third Reich constructed a framework of economic policy in which the effective pursuit of corporate survival or success had to serve, at least outwardly, the goals and the ideological requirements of the regime." (“Conscience, Knowledge,” 313-335) The indifference of German businessmen during the Third Reich, Hayes continues, reveals the all-too-common penchant in the contemporary world to hide behind so-called professional responsibilities in the face of deep moral challenges. "The obligation to achieve the best possible return for the firm and those who own or work for it to secure their long-term prospects, which in decent contexts can be a guarantee against personal corruption or frivolous management, became an excuse for participating in cruel, eventually murderous acts, indeed a mandate to do." (25, 10) Most alarming about this development was not even the complicity in murder through direct participation in the Nazi program of forced labor, but a sense of innocence about such complicity on the part of very many of the businessmen. They were able to subdue any moral hesitations they may have experienced with the response, "What else can I do?" (10) losing sight of the far more important question, according to Hayes, "what must I never do.” (26) Clearly these German businessmen had "neutralized" the humanity of the people forced by the Nazis into their labor program.

Hayes' studies provide solid data for the perspectives of a number of Jewish and Christian ethicists regarding the erosion of a sense of personal responsibility within Nazi culture. The "system" became the dominant reality, not human dignity. Regrettably we have not learned a lesson from the Nazi experience in this connection. Today we often see a similar process taking place within the context of globalization. "What else can I do?" has in fact become a stock phrase in the vocabulary of global capitalism. The dynamics of the market must reign supreme no matter what the cost in human terms, no matter that, as a European Union report of several years ago showed, some two hundred and fifty million children around the world are used to support this system living in conditions, in many instances, of virtual slavery. They have become a new form of Nazi forced labor. The late Pope John Paul II, in what may prove in the end to be his most prophetic concern, warned that the global ideology of the market, which has tended to replace the competing Cold War ideologies in recent years, cannot insure the preservation of human dignity:

The rapid advance toward the globalization of economic and financial systems also illustrates the urgent need to establish who is responsible for guaranteeing the global common good and the exercise of economic and social rights. The free market by itself cannot do this, because in fact there are many human needs which have no place in the market. (Pope John Paul II, 49)

Endnotes

(1) For an interesting review of the Gibson’s book, The Rule of Benedict. cf. Andrew M. Greeley, "The Puzzling Pope," Commonweal (Nov. 3, 2006), 2022.

(2) Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics Remember the Holocaust. Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1998, 31. This publication contains the texts of all the European declarations.

References

Benedict XVI. "Visit to Cologne Synagogue," Origins 35:12 (September 1, 2005), 205-207. Located at The Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College website www.cjirning.bc.edu

Bennett, Rab. The Moral Dilemmas of Resistance and Collaboration in Hitler's Europe. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Berenbaum, Michael, "The Impact of the Holocaust on Contemporary Ethics." Ethics in the Shadow of 'the Holocaust: Christian and Jewish Perspectives. Eds, Judith H. Banki and John T. Pawlikowski. Franklin, WI and Chicago: Sheed & ward, 2001. 239.

Bernardin, Cardinal Joseph. A Blessing to Each Other: Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and Jewish-Catholic Dialogue. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1996.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Global Dilemmas Democracy Faces." Origins (September 3, 1998), 210.

Friedlander, Henry. "The Manipulation of Language." The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide .Ed. Henry Friedlander and Sybil Milton. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1980, 103-113.

Gibson, David. The Rule of Benedict. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2006.

Greeley. Andrew M "The Puzzling Pope. Commonweal (Nov. 3, 2006), 2022.

Hayes, Peter. Industry and Ideology: L G. Farben in the Nazi Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Hayes, Peter. Profits and Persecution: German Big Business and the Holocaust. Washington: Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1998.

Hayes, Peter. "Conscience, Knowledge, and 'Secondary Ethics': German Corporate Executives from 'Aryanization' to the Holocaust," Ethics in the Shadow of the Holocaust, Ed. Judith H. Banki and John T. Pawlikowski, Franklin, WI and Chicago: Sheed & ward, 2001. 313-335.

Heer, Friedrich. God's First Love: Christians and Jews Over Two Thousand Years. New York: Weybright and Talley, 1967.

Hirsch, Herbert. "Reflections on 'Ethics, Morality and Responsibility' after the Holocaust." Remembering for the Future: The Holocaust in an Age of Genocide. Vol. 2, Ethics and Religion. Eds. John Roth and Elisabeth Maxwell, Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2001,

John Paul II. "Respect for Human Rights: The Secret of True Peace," 1999 World Day of Peace Message. Origins (December 24, 1998), 491.

Pawlikowski, John T. "The Vatican and the Holocaust: Putting We Remember in Context." Ethics in the Shadow of the Holocaust. Eds. Judith H. Banki and John T. Pawlikowski, eds. Franklin, WI and Chicago: Sheed & Ward, 2001.

Pawlikowski, John T. "The Papacy of Pius XII: The Known and the Unknown." Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. Eds. Carol Rittner and John K. Roth, London and New York: Leicester University Press, 2002, 56-69.

Pawlikowski, John T. Letter, Commonweal, CXXXIII, 12 (June 16. 2006), 5 and CXXXIII, 13 (July 16, 2006), 2.

Riegner, Gerhart M. Never Despair: Sixty Years in the Service of the Jewish People and the Cause of Human Rights. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006.

Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholics Remember the Holocaust. Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1998.

Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness with responses by Robert Coles, The Dalai Lama, Matthew Fox, Harold S. Kushner, Dennios Prager, Dith Pran, Harry Wu, and thirty-nine others. New York: Schocken

Catholicism's New Outreach to Jews and Muslims [Presented at Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida: February 12, 2007]

Catholic attitudes towards Jews and Muslims were overwhelmingly negative both theologically and practically prior to the II Vatican Council. Catholic-Jewish relations were marked by persistent antisemitism on the level of social interaction and dominated by so-called "adversus Judaios" tradition created by the Church Fathers. The view of Islam and its adherents was equally pejorative though there was not as formal a theological perspective on Muslims as there was for Jews. While we do find some respite from the overwhelming negativity in a few places such as Poland and Spain at certain moments these are definitely exceptions that often were due to a more enlightened outlook on the part of lay Catholics who sometimes were criticized for their openness by church leaders. The negative views of Judaism and Islam persisted well into the twentieth century and, as the studies on catholic teaching materials in the late fifties and early sixties as St. Louis University clearly revealed. (1)

In this presentation I do not intend to dwell on the past though Catholics are obliged to remember and acknowledge it as Pope John Paul II did in 2000 as part of Catholicism's millennial observance. Rather I want to focus on the profound transformation of Catholics’ attitudes towards Jews and Muslims that has occurred in the now several decades after the II Vatican Council and its decree on interreligious relations titled Nostra Aetate approved in the closing session of the Council in October 1965.

A bit of history is in order at this point. When Pope John XXIII announced the convening of the Council the provisional agenda did not include any document on interreligious relations. This topic was not yet on the Catholic Church's radar screen despite the then still recent experience of the Holocaust and Pope John XXIII's personal involvement in the rescue of Jews as a papal nuncio in Turkey. Some time after Pope John XXIII's announcement about a Council to begin in 1962 an historic visit took place at the Vatican between the Pope and the French Jewish his­torian Jules Isaac who had lost most of his family during the Holocaust and who had written on the issue of antisemitism. Both the Pope and Isaac could be described as charismatic personalities. When such persons encounter each other they often generate a new dynamic. This meeting was no exception. Isaac managed to persuade the Pope that the upcoming Council had to confront the longstanding legacy of Christian antisemitism and Christian anti-Judaic theology.

As a result of the meeting with Isaac Pope John XXIII ordered the inclusion of the topic of Catholic-Jewish relations on the revised conciliar agenda. A major discussion ensued inter­nally among those responsible for this agenda as to where the issue of Christian-Jewish re­lations should find a home. Many of those most sympathetic to the re-examination of the historic relationship favored including it in the proposed theological statement on the meaning of the Church. Others proposed a separate document on Catholic-Jewish relations.

The first proposal of including it in the statement on ecclesiology never garnered strong support. But the second proposal, i.e., a separate document, ran into political difficulties. Bishops from Arab dominated countries were afraid of returning home with a document exclusively on Catholic-Jewish relations. Hence it was decided to expand the conciliar document into a broader declaration on Catholicism's relationship with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. But the centerpiece of the document would remain its chapter four on Catholic-Jewish relations. After considerable debate during the course of II Vatican, a debate during which it appeared the document might be removed from the agenda, it was passed overwhelmingly in the final session of the Council. The sections on the religious traditions other than Judaism were not as well crafted as the chapter on the Church's relations with the Jews since they were included partly to cover politically what was primarily intended as a statement on the Church and the Jewish People. The document, as is customary, took its title from the opening Latin words, Nostra Aetate ("in our time"). Thus the statement on Islam was largely the result of the political problems faced by the Council if it had gone with a separate document only on the Jews. (2) It should be added here that the American bishops at Vatican II played a decisive role in the eventual passage of Nostra Aetate as well as its companion document on religious liberty, keeping the proposed statement alive when strong forces were calling for its abolishment.

The Canadian theologian Gregory Baum, an expert at the Council, termed chapter four of Nostra Aetate on Jews and Judaism the most dramatic turnaround in ordinary Catholic teaching to emerge from the Council in an address to the Catholic Theological Society of America meeting in Chicago in 1986. (3) It reversed nearly two thousand years of Catholic understanding regarding Jewish displacement from the covenantal relationship with God because of the Jewish People's sinful rejection of Jesus as the Messiah and their role in putting him to death which lay at the heart of the Church's Christological affirmation. The change in the perspective on Islam, not referred to by Baum, was somewhat less dramatic since Muslims never played the central role in Christian theological self-understanding as did the Jews. But nonetheless the change in perspective on Islam was also quite signi­ficant in light of its classical image in Catholic teaching.

In terms of the Jews, Nostra Aetate made three basic points. First of all, and this was the foundation for the other two assertions, Vatican II repudiated any claim that Jews were collectively responsible then or now for the death of Jesus. While it refrained in the end from explicitly rejecting the classical term "deicide," something that was in the preliminary versions of Nostra Aetate, it did unequivocally reject any idea that Jews were Jesus' primary executioners. It did not absolve Jews for Jesus' death as some newspaper headlines proclaimed in 1965; it asserted there was no basis for such a charge in the first place.

Secondly, and following upon the first assertion, Vatican II insisted that Jews remained in the ongoing covenant with God given that the basis for the classical view of their displacement was rooted in the now repudiated deicide charge. Nostra Aetate argued this claim out of chapters nine to eleven of Paul's Letter to the Romans where Paul presents the Jews as continuing in a covenantal partnership after the coming of Jesus. Regretably it ignored the counter arguments in the Letter to the Hebrews where the Jewish covenant is depicted as abrogated after Christ. In not confronting the competing New Testament perspectives in a direct way the Council left open the possibility for further controversy on the issue of Jewish covenantal inclusion. In recent years Cardinal Avery Dulles has raised the question of Hebrews in challenging the claim that Nosta Aetate definitely settled the matter of the Jewish People's covenantal role from a Christian theological perspective. (4) While other Catholic leaders such as Cardinal Walter Kasper have insisted that Dulles' view is a personal one and does not represent the prevailing post-Vatican II position of Catholicism in favor of continued Jewish covenantal in­clusion there is no question that Dulles' counter claim has muddied the waters theologically.

The final point of emphasis in chapter four of Nostra Aetate is on the deep rootedness of Jesus' preaching, n the Judaism of his time. This stands in stark contrast to pre-Vatican outlooks which tended to distance Jesus from the Judaism of the day and left the impres­sion that he harbored a certain disdain for Jewish religious practices. While Jesus may well have criticized certain extant Jewish approaches, as did other Jews, he clearly iden­tified in a very positive way with others. The 1985 Vatican NOTES on Catholic-Jewish relations issued to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate presented Jesus as closest to the Pharisaic movement in Judaism without explicitly identifying him as an actual member of that movement.

This third affirmation of Nostra Aetate has gained increasing ascendancy in biblical scholarship and in religious teaching materials even though its incorporation into systematic theology and official church declaration has been slow and uneven: The new under­standing of the integral connection between Jesus/early Christianity and important streams of first century Judaism is beginning to transform traditional thinking about the separation between Judaism and Christianity and posing new theological challenges in Christology and ecclesiology. (5) No one has expressed better this about-face in Christian circles on Jesus' links with the Jewish community than the retired Archbishop of Milan and outstanding biblical scholar Cardinal Carlo Martini. Martini has written: "Without a sincere feeling for the Jewish world, and a direct experience of it, one cannot fully understand Christianity. Jesus is fully Jewish, the apostles are Jewish, and one cannot doubt their attachment to the traditions of their forefathers." (6)

Turning to the issue of Nostra Aetate and the Islamic community I would repeat what I already indicated, namely, that the treatment of religious traditions beyond Judaism was primarily intended to provide "cover," as it were, for chapter four on the Church and Judaism. So what is said about Islam and other religious groups in the documents was not as well developed. Having said that, however, there were important building blocks laid down in Nostra Aetate for the emergence of a constructive Catholic-Muslim dialogue. Nostra Aetate speaks of the Catholic Church's high regard for Muslims. It acknowledges their worship of an almighty and merciful God and praises Islam's emphasis on submission to the divine will. Clearly Vatican II in Nostra Aetate acknowledged Islam as an authentic religious tradition from which Christians could gain religious insights that would enhance their own faith expression. This claim was ultimately founded on the document’s overall assertion this claim was about the truths evident in all religions.

While, with Islam, Catholicism did not have to overcome explicit theological rejection as was the case with Judaism, it nonetheless had to shed its negative outlook on all non-Christian religions that permeated its educational programs and overcome a significant history of Catholic-Muslim controversy. Nostra Aetate directly addressed the history of con­troversy, urging that the many quarrels and the dissensions of the past centuries be laid to rest and replaced by a sincere effort to achieve mutual understanding.

Nostra Aetate thus established a new foundation for Catholicism’s relationship with Jews and Muslims, albeit in different ways. Till today the Catholic Church has maintained a significant distinction between these two relationships even though they both come under Vatican II’s insistence that truth can be found in non-Christian religious traditions. Pope John Paul II in many of his addresses and writings on the Christian-Jewish relationship (7) unequivocally argued for an altogether special bonding between Jews and Christians that has no parallel in the Catholic-Muslim encounter, as important as that encounter was for the late Pope. Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, a strong proponent of Catholic-Islamic dialogue when he served as head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Relations, confirmed this papal stance on a number of occasions. His position was that the Catholic-Jewish relationship was sui generis with the Catholic-Islamic relationship having priority in the Church’s other encounters with non-Christians. The argument for the sui generis status of the Catholic-Jewish relationship ultimately has its roots in the recognition of authentic revelation in Judaism (i.e., the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures). Cardinal Walter Kasper has underlined this perspective in a number of his writings. (8) From the Catholic theological perspective one cannot speak of inherent theological bonding with Muslims in the same way that, as the Pope affirmed on numerous occasions, one is obliged to speak in terms of Judaism.

Recently some voices in the Catholic Church, including people such as Dr. John Borelli who served as Director of Catholic-Islamic relations at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for a number of years and now works in this area at Georgetown University have urged a more theological approach to Catholic-Muslim Dialogue that would include consideration of some theological connection between our respective faith traditions. (9) I myself proposed a movement in this direction in a plenary address in September 2005 at the Gregorian University in Rome at a conference celebrating the fortieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate co-sponsored by the Gregorian University, Boston College, Catholic Theological Union and Georgetown University. In part my argument was based on the fact that Muslims generally acknowledge a validity to both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, though the Islamic use of the biblical books differs considerably from the way in which the Old Testament­-New Testament relationship has been perceived by Christians. Therefore Muslims would also seem to have some direct connection to what Christians regard as authentic revelation.

In the ensuing years further developments have taken place in terms of the initial about-face on Catholic-Jewish relations and Catholic-Muslim relations at Vatican II. The development has been far more extensive on the Catholic-Jewish front though advancements have also occurred with re­gard to the latter dialogue as well. Four major documents have emerged in the last forty years further refining and enhancing the Church's understanding of its links with the Jewish People. The Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews released important statements in 1974 (tenth anniversary of Nostra Aetate), 1985 (the twentieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate), and 1998 (We Remember on the Holocaust). In 2001 the Pontifical Biblical Commission, part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), produced a two hundred page monograph on the Jews and their Scriptures in the New Testament. In addition, as has already been noted, Pope John Paul II delivered many addresses on Catholic-Jewish relations during his long pontificate which have been collected into two published volumes. National Bishops' Conferences in many parts of the world, particularly in North America and Europe, have added to this library of constructive materials. (10) As for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, it should be noted that the Pontifical Biblical Commission monograph came out on his watch at the CDF along with a personal affirmation of its perspectives in the Introduction he wrote for it. As Pope he has given a few speeches on Catholic-Jewish relations which mostly reaffirm the vision of Pope John Paul II rather than contribute any further advancement in Catholic thinking on the matter.

There is no parallel development with respect to Catholic-Muslim relations though some advancements in rethinking Church attitudes towards Islam have emerged in intermittent dialogues between the two faith communities both under the direct aegis of the Vatican and at the national level through the initiatives of Islamic organizations and the respective Bishops' Conference. The United States has seen the most organized effort at a national level, a story to which I will return later in this essay. The unevenness of the developments relative to the two dialogues clearly show that Nostra Aetate originally was intended to be a document whose major thrust was Catholic-Jewish relations.

The 1974 Vatican document on Catholic-Jewish Relations is primarily known for its emphasis on the need for Catholics to come to understand Jews as they define themselves or, in other words, to refrain from creating what I would call "straw Jews." The 1985 document focused its attention on the correct presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic religious education and preaching. The 1998 document on the Holocaust emphasized the importance of Holocaust education and tried to come to grips with Catholic responsibility during the Shoah. On the latter point some, including myself, have judged it incomplete even though it moved in the right direction on the question of Catholic collaboration with the Nazi effort at Jewish annihilation. 11) Beyond the actual points made in these Vatican statements they helped immeasurably in creating a positive ethos for constructive scholarly work on the question on the part of theologians biblical exegetes.

As the scholarly effort begun to probe the implications of two of the major assertions of Nostra Aetate's chapter four, i.e., the continued validity of the Jewish covenant after the coming of Christ and Jesus' deep integration with the Judaism of his time, two initial approaches came to the fore in terms of a revised understanding of the Jewish-Christian relationship from the standpoint of Catholicism. While within each approach, different nuances appear from scholar to scholar, we can generally characterize the two trends as "single covenant" and "double covenant" perspectives.

The first approach is generally termed the "single covenant" understanding. It holds that Jews and Christians basically belong to one covenantal tradition that began at Sinai. In this perspective, the coming of Christ represented the decisive moment when the Gentiles were able to enter fully into the special relationship with God that Jews already enjoyed and in which they continue. Some holding this viewpoint maintain that the decisive features of the Christ Event have universal application, including to the Jews. Other scholars in this con­tinuing discussion are more inclined to argue that the Christian appropriation and reinterpretation of the original covenantal traditions, in and through Jesus, applies primarily to non-Jews. The single covenant approach has definitely been the preferred option at the level of Vatican leadership.

The second approach, usually called the "double covenant" theory, begins at the same point as its single covenant counterpart, namely, with a strong affirmation of the continuing bonds between Christians and Jews. But then it prefers to underline the distinctiveness of the two traditions and communities, particularly in terms of their experiences after the final separation of the Church and synagogue. Catholics associated with this perspective insist on maintaining the view that through the ministry, teachings, and person of Jesus, a vision of God emerged that was distinctively new in terms of its central features. Even though there may well have been important groundwork laid for the emergence of this distinctive new vision during the period of the Second Temple of Middle Judaism and its realization took some time to mature, what came to be understood regarding the divine-human relationship as a result of Jesus' coming has to be regarded as a quantum leap. (12)

Two other new scholarly insights that have come to the fore in recent years also significantly affect how we look at the interrelation hip of the Jewish and Christian covenants. The first is the recognition of the extensive plurality within the Jewish community in the first century, especially regarding the notion of the Messiah, which seriously undercuts simplistic assertions about Christianity's fulfilling Judaism or Jesus being the expected Jewish messiah. (13) The second is the new recognition that the separation of Judaism and Christianity as faith communities was far more protracted than we once believed, ex­tending over a period of several centuries. Scholars now generally argue that it did not even begin in any substantive way within Jesus' own lifetime but only after the end of the Jewish war with Rome in 70 c.e. And there is a real question whether Jesus' ever intended such a separation.

Both the single and double covenant approaches have their drawbacks and neither fully resolves the issues raised by the affirmation of Nostra Aetate about continued Jewish covenantal inclusion. The question still remains: if salvation in and through Christ is to be seen as having universal application, something that even a progressive thinker in this dialogue such as Cardinal Walter Kasper strongly maintains, then how is salvation in Christ to be understood in terms of the Jewish People? In recent years there have been some efforts to move somewhat beyond the options of the single and double covenants and to probe further an authentic Catholic response to this central question. Both the 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission monograph and a few writings of Cardinal Ratzinger prior to his election as Pope are two examples of such further reflection.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission document, despite some significant limitations in the way it portrays postbiblical Judaism, makes an important contribution to the development of a new con­structive Christological understanding in the context of Jewish covenantal inclusion. (14) Two statements in particular are very significant for this discussion.

The first assertion is that Jewish messianic hopes are not in vain. This is coupled with a recognition that Jewish readings of the Hebrew Scriptures in terms of understanding human re­demption represent an authentic interpretation of these biblical texts. Here we have the seeds of what appears to be a recognition of a distinctive salvific path for the Jewish people as a theological principle. In this connection Cardinal Walter Kasper has asserted that "if they (i.e., the Jews) follow their own conscience and believe in God's promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with God's plan." (15)

The Pontifical Biblical Commission document also speaks of the eschatological Messiah as the One who is to come. This eschatological Messiah will exhibit the traits Christians have already seen and acknowledged in the Jesus who has already come and remains with the Church. While there is a small window for new thinking here, an opening seems to be provided for acknowledgment of the future "One" by Jews without necessarily speaking of the "One" in specific Christological terms. This may be reading into the text but I would at least suggest this as a possible interpretation. The Pontifical Biblical Commission had no mandate to pursue the possible theological implications of its assertion but theologians certainly do.

As for Cardinal Ratzinger, he would appear to be building on the Pontifical Biblical Commission's argument that Jewish messianic hopes are not in vain, something that Ratzinger mentions in his Introduction to the Pontifical Biblical Commission document. He seems to argue, in several essays prior to his coming to the papacy, for a distinctive path to salvation for Jews, but not one that is totally separate. (16) In such a view he stands close to Cardinal Kasper though he may insist somewhat more than Kasper on explicit Christological affirmation on the part of Jews at the end time. As Pope he has not made any major statement on the theology of the Catholic-Jewish relationship to date. He did address this question indirectly on March 15, 2006, in a Lenten address on the theme of "the relation­ship between Christ and the Church." In this address he seems to revert to more traditional views of that theology and fails to make mention of his previous writings or the Pontifical Biblical Commission document. I am not sure we can give too much ultimate weight to this relatively low level statement. But it does show the disconnect that remains between more formal statements on Catholic-Jewish relations and more popular presentations from the Vatican.

Let me add at this point that the above theological re-examination by Christians needs a theological response from the Jewish side if it is to be authentic given the theological connections between the Church and the Jewish People. Several Jewish scholars such as Irving Greenberg, Michael Signer and Michael Kogan have pursued the question of Christianity's potential meaning for Judaism. The only document of significance from the Jewish side has been Dabru Emet by four leading Jewish scholars: David Novak, Peter Ochs, Michael Signer and the late Tikva Frymer-Kensky and endorsed by over two hundred other Jewish scholars and rabbis. (17) While welcomed in many Christians circles Dabru Emet has some vocal opposition within the Jewish scholarly community. (18)

An important theological statement from the Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United States is the document Reflections on Covenant and Mission (19) along with a parallel statement from the ecumenical Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations titled A Sacred Obligation. (20) The first document emerged from an ongoing dialogue between the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Ecumenical and Inter­religious Affairs and the National Council of Synagogues. It had a companion statement from the Jewish perspective which generally has been put aside as of inferior quality. While only a study document, it was intended in part as a response to Cardinal Walter Kasper's call for national episcopal conferences to pursue the issue of the Christian-Jewish theological relationship in lieu of any imminent new statement from Rome on the subject.

Both Reflections on Covenant and Mission and A Sacred Obligation (which was intended in part as a response to Dabru Emet) affirm the continuing validity of the Jewish covenant and argue that issues related to Christology and to the evangelization of Jews need considerable rethinking in light of the scholarship that has come forth as a result of the now more than forty years of dialogue. Some very negative reactions ensued to Reflections on Covenant and Mission, in particular from Cardinal Avery Dulles and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (21) But the document has also received considerable praise from Cardinal Edward ldris Cassidy in his volume reflecting on his work as President of the Pontifical Council on Christian Unity and its affiliated unit the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. While not embracing Reflections on Covenant and Mission in every aspect, Cardinal Cassidy terms the statement "an encouraging response that marks a significant step forward in the dialogue, especially in the United States." (22)

Nothing remotely parallel to the above developments in the theology of the Christian-­Jewish relationship can be found in the Catholic-Muslim conversation thus far. Nor has there been any document from the Muslim side in the vein of Dabru Emet. This is still a future agenda in this conversation. The closest we have is some theological conversation on how each faith community understands central questions in religious understanding such as revelation One example of such an effort is a document outlining respective Catholic and Muslim perspectives on revelation prepared by the Midwest Dialogue of Catholics and Muslims co-sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (23) And Pope Benedict XVI, particularly in speeches while on his Turkey trip and thereafter in an effort to overcome the negative reactions to his much discussed remarks on Islam at Regensburg University in Germany, has stressed Catholicism's recognition of truth in Islam and the shared origins of Christianity and Islam. While the Pope's primary emphasis in these statements has been on the important common search for social values, such remarks do lend themselves to further theological reflection on the Catholic-Muslim relationship. (24)

The issues surrounding the question of theological links between the Church and Judaism and the Church and Islam are still in their infancy and very much in flux. While we have seen far more development on the Catholic-Jewish front, even here we are far from a consensus on how to state the relationship theologically. The "distinctive but not distinct" formulation in terms of the Catholic-Jewish relation­ship offers some possibilities for further discussion and may even have some potential application to the Catholic-Muslim theological discussion. But we are far from a total replacement of the more traditional ways of understanding either relationship within Catholicism as a whole. This definitely remains a work in progress. The critical question of "conversion" has hardly been raised, for example, within the Catholic community as a whole. (25) And this is also a question that Islam must confront from its side if the dialogue is to acquire greater substance.

With the succinct survey of developments in Catholic-Jewish and Catholic-Muslim relations since Nostra Aetate we need to ask where we go from here in this post-9/11 era. In my view religion retains a necessary and realistic potential for overcoming the association of religion and violence we witnessed in 9/11. But for that potential to become real Judaism, Christianity and Islam each need to confront and root out any seeds of violence in their faith expressions. On this point I can only address the challenge for Christians. Before the Church can be­come a force for authentic justice and reconciliation in our contemporary globalized society it must honestly acknowledge the times throughout history when it significantly contributed to social violence.

Pope John Paul II did begin such a process of genuine self-analysis in his liturgical ceremony on the first Sunday of Lent, 2000, when he expressed contrition for Catholicism's participation in antisemitism, colonial exploitation, etc. But I am not at all sure Pope Benedict XVI is willing to follow on the same path. Certain of his recent state­ments in the context of Catholic-Jewish and Catholic-Muslim relations leave considerable doubt that he fully understands or supports such contrition. His controversial address at the University of Regensberg legitimately raised the issue of violence within Islam. But he did it in such a one-sided manner without any recognition of violence within the Catholic tradition that it rightly received strong criticism. And several of his speeches dealing with the Holocaust, in particular the remarks at the Cologne synagogue and subsequently at the Birkenau death camp, attribute the Holocaust to pagan forces hostile to all religions. While no scholar of the Holocaust would deny that there was a profound anti-religious dimension to Nazi ideology, this ideology could not have succeeded to the extent it did without the active collaboration and support of many baptized Catholics. Both in Cologne and in Birkenau the present Pope failed to acknowledge any major insti­tutional responsibility on the part of the Catholic Church for what occurred during the Holocaust. His speech was criticized by the editors of Commonweal magazine, a critique I subsequently supported in a published letter in the magazine. (26)

David Gibson, a former reporter for Vatican Radio and author of The Rule of Benedict (27) in an article released through Religious News Service at the time of the controversy over papal remarks on Islam and violence at Regensberg rightly describes Pope Benedict as seemingly considering any criticism of the Church as a potential threat to its ability to speak the truth to contemporary society. That there were some bad appleism as it were, in Catholicism Pope Benedict is willing to grant. But the Church as such has always been, in the words of Gibson, "an immutable exemplar of the religious ideal" in the papal perspective. Gibson unfavorably contrasts this current papal perspective with that of John Paul II who is­sued more than one hundred formal apologies during his tenure. Gibson notes that Cardinal Ratzinger was known as a behind-the-scenes critic of such apologies and once publicly described such efforts as "masochistic" and "perverse."

The second challenge facing our three religious tradition is the extension of our universe of moral concern to embrace those outside the context of our respective faith community. If our religious traditions are to constructively en­gage contemporary society we must make human dignity, not right belief, the foundation of our faith perspective. This is not to say that our creedal beliefs are unimportant. Quite the contrary. But ultimately we must make human dignity the basis of our moral concern not whether a person accepts the same creedal system as we do. Such a transposition will not come easy to any of the three religious traditions though Judaism may have the easiest time of it because of its notion of the Noachide commandments. But come it must.

A few closing comments. In my judgment the better road at the moment is to emphasize the bilateral conversations--Christian/Jewish, Christian/Muslim, Jewish/Muslim. But within this emphasis on the bilaterals we must also try to find opportunities for trilateral discussions. (28) Such discussions have indeed proven a difficult challenge in recent years, in part because of political tensions in the Middle East. But they are indispensable despite my prioritization of the bilaterals. In any trilateral discussions it is important that we include any important changes resulting from the bilateral conversations. This is certainly the case, for example, in any presentation of Christianity within the Catholic­-Muslim dialogue where the changes in Christian self-understanding generated within the Catholic-Jewish dialogue must be fully presented.

Secondly, each religious tradition must be careful in not highlighting the views of people in the other faith communities who have little status among their fellow believers. This has become an increasing challenge of late for three of our religious communities. To be sure, there is a fine line here. We do not want to engage only official institutional types. Certainly people who are willing to critique responsibly their own religious tradition with respect to its views of other faiths must be included. But it is destructive of genuine conversation if one community promotes the views of a person in another faith com­munity who is not merely a responsible critic but really stands on the very fringe of that tradition. Obviously no hard and fast guidelines can be put forward in this regard. What is required, however, is sensitivity and a willingness to consult with key people in the other tradition.

We have come a long way in Catholicism in our understanding of Jews and Muslims in the more than forty years since Vatican II. But we have only begun the process of Abrahamic reconciliation which I regard as critical for well-being of today's global society. There will be many ups and downs in the continuing process. There are certainly voices, some of them growing stronger, that want this process to come to a halt. We must resist that at all cost. Faith and hope require us to carry on with deliberate speed.

Endnotes

(1) Cf. John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Catechetics & Prejudice: How Catholic Teaching Materials View Jews, Protestants and Racial Minorities. New York/Paramus/Toronto: Paulist, 1973; Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Revised and Updated Edition, Foreward by Philip A. Cunningham. New York/Paramus: Paulist, 2004.

(2) For background on the development of Nostra Aetate, cf. Arthur Gilbert, Vatican Council and the Jews. Cleveland and New York: World, 1968; Joseph Komonchak (ed.), History of Vatican II, Vol 4. Maryknoll. NY: Orbis, 2003; John M. Oesterreicher, The New Encounter Between Christians and Jews. New York: Philosophical Library, 1986; Uri Bialer, The Christian World in Israel's Foreign Policy, 1948-1967. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005; and Gerhart M. Riegner, Never Despair. Sixty Years in the Service of the Jewish People and the Cause of Human Rights. Chicago: Ivan Dee, 2006.

(3) Gregory Baum, "The Social Context of American Catholic Theology," Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 41 (1986), 87.

(4) Cf. Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Evangelization and the Jews," with a response by Mary C. Boys, Philip A. Cunningham and John T. Pawlikowski, America 187:12 (October 21, 20020, 8-16 and "The Covenant with Israel," First Things, November 2005.

(5) Cf. John T. Pawlikowski, "Reflections on Covenant and Mission Forty Years After Nostra Aetate," Cross Currents, 56:4 (Winter 2007), 70-94.

(6) Cardinal Carlo Martini, "Christianity and Judaism: A historical and theological overview," in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present and Future. New York: Crossroad, 1990, 19.

(7) Pope John Paul II, Spiritual Pilgrimage: Texts on Jews and Judaism 1979-1995, Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki (eds.). New York: Crossroad, 1995; Pope John Paul II on Jews and Judaism, Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki (eds.), Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1987. Also cf. Byron L. Sherwin and Harold Kasimow (eds.), John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999.

(8) Cardinal Walter Kasper, "The Good Olive Tree," America 185:7 (September 17, 2001), 12-14; "Spiritual and Ethical Commitment in Jewish-Christian Dialogue," in Ruth Weyl (ed.), Fromthe Martin Buber House, 30 (Summer 2002), 12-20; and "Christians, Jews and the thorny question of mission," Origins 32:28 (December 19, 2002), 457; 459-467.

(9) John Borelli, "U.S. Catholic-Muslim Dialogue: History and Prospects," Origins, 36:35 (February 15, 2007), 558-563.

(10) Helga Croner (ed.), Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations: An Un­abridged Collection of Christian Documents; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1977; and More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents 1975-1983. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1985.

(11) Cf. Judith H. Bank and John T. Pawlikowski (eds.), Ethics in the Shadow of the Holo­caust: Christian and Jewish Perspectives. Franklin, WI and Chicago: Sheed & Ward, 2001, Part I.

(12) Cf. my book Christ in the Light of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001 for a summary of these positions.

(13) In a forthcoming book from Oxford University Press Dr. Michael Kogan spells out the diverse messianic options within Judaism at the time of Jesus and early Christianity in the process of offering a Jewish theology of Christianity.

(14) The Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scrip­tures in the Christian Bible. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002; also cf. Donald Senior, "Rome has spoken: A New Catholic Approach to Judaism," Commonweal 130 (January 31, 2003, 20-23 and articles by Mary Boys, Leslie Hoppe, Michael O'Connor, John T. Pawlikowski and Amy-Jill Levine in The Bible Today, 41:3 (May 2003), 141-172.

(15) Cardinal Walter Kasper's Boston College address can be found on the website of The Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College.

(16) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "The Heritage of Abraham, the Gift of Christmas," L'Osservatore Romano, December 29, 2000; Many Religions-One Covenant. San Francisco. Ignatius Press, 2000; God and the World: believing and Living in Our Time. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002. For a Jewish response, cf. David Berger, "Dominus lesus and the Jews," America 185:7 (September 17, 2001), 7-12.

(17) Cf. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmei and Michael Signer (eds.), Christianity in Jewish Terms. Boulder, CO; Westview Press, 2000.

(18) For a critical response to Dabru Emet, cf. Jon D. Levenson, "How nopt to con­duct Jewish-Christian dialogue," Commentary, December 2001, 31-37 with a spirited exchange of letters on the Levinson article.

(19) "Reflections on Covenant and Mission, by participants in a dialogue between the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the National Council of Synagogue," Origins 32:13 (September 5, 2002), 218-224.

(20) Mary Boys (ed.), Seeing Judaism Anew: Christianity's Sacred Obligation. Lanham/ Boulder/New York/ Toronto/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

(21) Cf. Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Evangelization and the Jews."

(22) Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue: Unitatis Reintegration; Nostra Aetate. New York/Mahweh: Paulist, 2005, 252.

(23) Midwest Dialogue of Catholics and Muslims, Revelation: Catholic & Muslim Per­spectives. Washington: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006.

(24) For several speeches by Pope Benedict XVI on Catholic-Muslim relations, cf. Origins 36:27 (December 14, 2006).

(25) On "conversion," cf. John T. Pawlikowski, "Maintaining Momentum in a Global Village," in E. Kessler, J. Pawlikowski and J. Banki (eds.), Jews and Christiansin Conversation: Crossing Cultures and Generations. Cambridge, UK: Orchard Academic, 2002, 75-91.

(26) Cf. Commonweal, CXXXIII:12 (June 16,2006,5; and CXXXIII:13 (July 16, 2006), 2.

(27) David Gibson, The Rule of Benedict. San Francisco: HarperSand Francisco, 2006. For an interesting review, cf. Andrew M. Greeley, "The Puzzling Pope," Commonweal (Nov. 3, 2006), 20-22.

(28) Several new books have appeared on the trilateral relationship past and present. Cf. Norman Solomon, Richard Harries, and Tim Winter (eds.), Abraham's Children: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Conversation London/New York: T&T Clark, 2005; Kenneth L. Vaux, Jew, Christian, Muslim: Faithful unification or fateful trifurcation? Word, way, worship and war in the Abrahamic faiths. Eugene. OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003; and Zacahary Karabell, Peace Be Upon You. The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.

John Paul II and the Vatican on the Global Market Economy [Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics Hyatt Regency Hotel Chicago January 9, 2004]

Pope John Paul II entered the papacy with considerable experience in dealing with the problems of a socialist economy. This experience is no doubt behind some of his trenchant criticism of “the social assistance state” highlighted by George Weigel. (1) Yet, as Pope, John Paul II has never given blanket endorsement to capitalism, as we shall see subsequent to this presentation. And he has placed great emphasis on human creativity and freedom in the economic sphere, something he certainly found lacking in the economic system with which he had to contend in his native Poland. And he has certainly drawn on the reflections regarding economic matters of his predecessors, including Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio which many conservative Catholics hoped John Paul II would place in the dustbin of history. (2)

John Paul II’s interest in economic matters is visible in the very first years of his papacy, particularly in addresses given during his early foreign trips. His 1979 address to the United Nations set a basic tone for his pontificate in terms of the global economic system. “People must become aware,” he argued, “that economic tensions within countries and the relationship between states and even between entire continents contain within themselves substantial elements that restrict or violate human rights.” (3) In that same address he criticized those who think it is improper to gauge the performance of an economic system by other than narrowly defined market criteria. “The fundamental criterion for comparing social, economic and political systems ... must be the humanistic criterions, namely the measure in which each system is capable of reducing, restraining and eliminating as far as possible the various forms of exploitation of man and of ensuring for him, through work, not only the just distribution of the indispensable material goods, but also a participation, in keeping with his dignity, in the whole process of production and in the social life that grows up around that process."

The 1984 addresses of John Paul II in Edmonton and Newfoundland, Canada, serve to further clarify the basic framework of the Pope's economic vision. They confirm even more forcefully than the United Nations address and his presentation at Yankee Stadium in New York on the same trip, in which he forthrightly challenged the American Catholic community on economic injustices, his indebtedness to the teachings of Pope Paul VI and to the 1971 Synod document on "Justice in the World."

In Newfoundland, John Paul II had the opportunity to speak about economic issues in a region beset by a widespread economic depression. Though he focused on the primary local issue—the serious collapse of the local fishing industry—his principles have far broader application. It quickly becomes apparent from reading this brief talk that the Pope is deeply aware of the need for major structural changes in the world economy if fishermen, or any other workers for that matter, are to achieve greater dignity.

In his Newfoundland address, the Pope offered a critique of unrestrained capitalism on two counts. First, he expressed grave reservations about the growing concentration of capital in ever larger corporations, which leaves control of the markets in the hands of a very small, select circle. Such concentration destroys the organization of production by small units, a system the Pope believes can better provide humane working conditions for laborers. Secondly, John Paul argued that free enterprise alone cannot guarantee adequate production and distribution of food and other necessities. There remains a definite need for government intervention and planning: “The responsible stewardship of all the earth’s resources, and especially food, requires long-range planning at the different levels of government, in cooperation with industries and workers.” (5)

The Pope went on in his address to recommend the promotion of fishing cooperatives, collective agreements between fishermen and management, and even partnerships of forms of joint ownership. These recommendations were somewhat less bold in a Canadian context than they might be in the United States, given the Canadian experimentation with more socialist-leaning economic models in several provinces in Canada. He also supported a basic principle of the Canadian Bishops’ economic statement: “the value and dignity of labor.” (6) Preserving this dignity requires the creation of economic models that allow for worker participation in decisions regarding the work process and the use of capital produced by it.

John Paul II’s address in Edmonton, Alberta, was his most specific early statement on the international economic order, as viewed in the light of the incarnationally-based theology of human dignity he outlined in his first two major encyclicals, Redemptor Hominis and Laborem Exercens. Speaking with clear moral indignation and sometimes departing from his prepared text, the Pope told Canada and other wealthy nations of the north that they will be judged ultimately by their actions toward the poor people of the south: “Poor people and poor nations poor in different ways, not only lacking in food, but also deprived of freedom and human rights will sit in judgment on those people who take these goods away from them, amassing to themselves the imperialistic monopoly of economic decisionmaking." (7) Invoking the New Testament parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, a persistent theme in his early reflections on economic matters, the Pope cautions the world's economic elite that to remain comfortable amidst global poverty is to place their eternal salvation at risk. John Paul II's remarks at Edmonton, as well as in other early visits to North America, certainly matched, and in some ways, exceeded the criticism of the global economy found in Populorum Progressio and in the Synod document Justice in the World.

At this point let me summarize John Paul IIs first two encyclicals dealing substantively with economic issues (Laborem Exercens and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis) and then go on to the most recent encyclical in which the market economy takes centerstage (Centesimus Annus). In Laborem Exercens the Pope endorsed an economic model closely resembling the societal plan developed by the Polish union movement Solidarity in the midst of its struggle with the reigning socialist government in Poland. In examining this encyclical it must be kept in mind that the Solidarity movement at this point was envisioning a significant reform of the socialist state in Poland, not its total replacement (which no one at that point thought possible because of Russian military power). John Paul II maintains that an authentic Catholic notion of private property diverges radically from the approach taken by Marxism. At the same time he affirms that it also different from the outlook on private property and the means of production operative in liberal capitalism. He does not exclude the possibility of the socialization of the means of production in certain circumstances.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, written to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio, is set in the context of the continuing struggle between the West block of nations and the countries under the sway of Marxism. His bottom line is that both systems are responsible for the severe economic hardships experienced by millions of people throughout the globe. Though he affirms the right of economic initiative and the creative subjectivity of the citizen, he castigates both economic systems for their treatment of the Third and Fourth Worlds, a treatment he labels as imperialistic and neo-colonial.

Centesimus Annus, issued to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the first Catholic social encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, represents John Paul II's most developed statement on the market economy. Its proper interpretation has become a matter of some dispute among commentators. I shall attend to that controversy shortly.

In the text of the encyclical the Pope poses a fundamental question about the global economy. With the collapse of the Communist system in most of the world, can we now say that capitalism is to be regarded as the victorious system? The papal answer is that the issue is complex. It depends on how we define the nature of capitalism. If by capitalism we mean an economic system that acknowledges the importance of business, the market, private property, the responsible use of the means of production, and space for human creativity, then the Pope judges the capitalist framework to be the best currently available. But if capitalism operates in a framework in which there is a lack of any juridical framework which directs the market economy towards the genuine service of the community and of total human freedom (which would include freedom from political oppression and freedom from poverty), then the papal response is negative. For John Paul II an unbridled market economy is clearly unacceptable. Governmental authority has to provide the juridical framework within which the market economy operates. He remains convinced that the market economy, by itself, cannot satisfy fundamental human needs. The profit motive is integral to a successful economy, according to Centesimus Annus. But other human and moral factors must be brought into play.

As John Paul II sees it, the demise of the Marxist economic model does not automatically mean that capitalism is the sole acceptable form of economic organization. Centesimus Annus warns that "The Western countries ... run the risk of seeing this collapse as a one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to make necessary corrections in that system" (CA, n. 56).

One particular passage in Centesimus Annus has been the subject of considerable debate. It is paragraph #48 in which the Pope offers a strong critique of the "social assistance state." Michael Novak, from a Catholic neoconservative perspective, argues that Vatican Il accepted the American idea of religious freedom and "in Centesimus Annus Rome has assimilated American ideas of economic liberty." (8) Donal Dorr, a social ethicist with extensive connections in the Third World, expresses disappointment over this passage. But he cautions that this passage does not represent a retreat from previous papal statements but rather an effort to find models that go beyond the social welfare state. John Paul II is saying, according to Dorr, that states should not create economic dependency on the part of their citizenry. Rather the state should empower them to develop economic initiatives. (9) Fr. Byran Hehir finds paragraph #48 rather jarring in terms of the overall flow of the Pope's argumentation. As he sees it, the duties presented as incumbent upon the state in various section of Centesimus Annus and John Paul II's other writings include many, if not most, of the activities covered by the label "welfare state." (10) The evidence for the centrality of restrained state intervention is so compelling in the overall corpus of John Paul II's writings, according to Hehir, that the few paragraphs highlighted in Centesimus Annus by Novak, Weigel and Neuhaus cannot undo the basic thrust of his thinking.

It may be that paragraph #48 is in fact a rather late addition to the text. Soon after the release of.Sollicitudo, Rei Socialis a group of Catholic lay persons, some of them connected with the so-called Lay Letter on the Economy issued at the same time as the U.S. Bishops' Pastoral on the Economy, traveled to the Vatican to express criticism over what they regarded as the excessively socialist orientation of the encyclical. They met with Cardinal Jorge Mejia who was then second in command at the Pontifical Commission for Justice & Peace. Their protest basically fell on hard ground. As a result, they made a decided effort to insure that the planned encyclical for the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum included something of their perspective on the market economy. Paragraph #48, inserted with the support of certain leading Catholic hierarchs, is the result. This would account for its seeming clash with other parts of Centesimus Annus that Fr. Hehir has accurately noted.

David Hollenbach's summary comments regarding this encyclical are to the point. "It would be a serious mistake, " he says, "to think that the Pope has blessed the form of capitalism existing in the United States today. In fact the encyclical is a major challenge to much recent U.S. economic and social policy." (11)In my judgment several commentators on Centesimus Annus, such as Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak and George Weigel, considerably overstate John Paul II's affirmation of capitalism. Neuhaus' editorial in the Wall Street Journal, printed a day prior to its official release, was especially egregious in this regard, leaving the impression that the Pope had conferred an unqualified papal blessing on the market economy. Though in Centesimus Annus he affirms free market mechanisms more strongly and directly than any of his predecessors, he also explicitly warns capitalist nations, as we have just seen in the above quotation from the encyclical, against any premature euphoria regarding the moral superiority of their economic system. John Paul IIs critique undercuts the triumphant language about capitalism in the writings of Novak and Weigel which have found their way into Poland and other parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

George Weigel, in a personal letter, has insisted that John Paul II has supported his interpretation of Centesimus Annus in private conversation. That may be. But, if that is the case, then John Paul II needs to clarify the public record and thus far he has failed to do so. On the contrary, in a number of key addresses on economic matters since the issuance of the encyclical, he has offered a perspective on the correct meaning of Centesimus Annus that significantly differs from that of Weigel, Neuhaus and Novak. Most of these addresses receive no notice in their writings.

The first such address occurred on May 15, 1991, shortly after the release of the actual encyclical. It might be read as a papal response to the interpretation offered by Neuhaus in the Wall Street Journal editorial and several other similar media accounts. The audience was a group of international economic and political experts gathered in Rome to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum. In his talk John Paul II was highly critical of the growing economic imbalances among the nations of the world brought on by large concentrations of wealth that are part and parcel of the market economy as it actually functions today. He also cited the ravaging effects of pollution and clearly associated these with the dominant global economic system. Coming as it did so soon after the release of Centesimus Annus, this address may be seen as a Vatican counterbalance to those commentators who inaccurately interpreted the encyclical as a blanket endorsement of capitalism. (12)

The same can be said for a major statement on Catholic social teaching which John Paul II delivered on September 9, 1993, at the University of Latvia in which he offered his own explicit interpretation of how to read Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus in terms of capitalism. The Pope emphasized that Catholic social doctrine cannot be viewed as a "surrogate for Capitalism." While the Church has consistently condemned Socialism, it has likewise "distanced itself from Capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices." At Riga John Paul II underlined that, even after the collapse of Communism, grave doubts have to be raised about the validity of capitalism. While he professed belief in the market economy, such an economy acquires legitimacy only if it is circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which enables it truly to promote the freedom of all people, a point strongly stressed, as we have already seen, in Centesimus Annus. (13) Mention of a "juridical framework" surely implies an ongoing, active role for national governments and the international political community in the management of economic affairs.

Several years later (April 25, 1997) the Pope spoke to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In this address John Paul II clearly stated that the Church in no way condemns the deregulation of the market economy. "History amply demonstrates," he insisted, "the failure of regimes characterized by planning that is harmful to civil and economic freedoms." But he went on to add that to promote economic models diametrically opposed to a planned economy cannot be justified. "Experience shows," he underlined, "that a market economy left to unconditional freedom is far from bringing the greatest possible advantages to individuals and societies." In the papal perspective, political activity is critical for a balanced market that incorporates the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. He likewise acknowledged that such political activity cannot be restricted to nation-states today in view of the global dimensions of the economy, but must involve regional and global institutions with juridical authority. (14)

More recently, John Paul II has addressed the issue of the market economy in terms of the challenge of globalization. In Mexico in January 1999 John Paul II denounced "neo-liberal" the economic model that sees "profit and law of the markets as its only parameters." In words that virtually echo Marxist language, the Pope exhorted his audience, "No more exploitation of the weak, ...never again!" (15) And in an April 2002 address, once again to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, John Paul II insisted that it "corresponds to the political sphere to regulate the markets, to subject market laws to solidarity, so that individuals and societies are not sacrificed by economic changes at all levels, and are protected from impulses linked to the deregulation of the markets." He went on to encourage the "agents of social, political and economic life to go further in the way of cooperation among people, businesses and nations so that the management of our earth will be at the service of persons and peoples, not just of profit." In order to achieve this objective, John Paul II proposed "collective decisions" at the "planetary level" directed "to implementing [these decisions] through a process that favors the responsible participation of all.... called to build the future together." (16)

In light of these papal commentaries, the interpretation of Centesimus Annus found in the writings of Novak, Weigel and Neuhaus is seriously limited. Ultimately they blunt the moral challenge John Paul II continues to present to global society in terms of economic justice. Centesimus Annus is no Catholic charter for Capitalism. Nor is John Paul II a fit candidate for a ticker tape parade down Wall Street in New York.

From the above analysis it is clear that, while John Paul II acknowledges the market economy as the best framework for organizing society currently available, he remains severely critical of its failures thus far in terms of global poverty and increasing ecological destruction. Capitalism cannot have high moral prestige in the eyes of the Pope until such time as it overcomes the huge economic disparity in the world today and does a far better job in protecting the environment. Capitalism for John Paul II (and he does not rule out possible alternate social frameworks) must integrate solidarity as a central virtue if it is to serve genuine human development. And it must be subjected to political controls. The market in an uncontrolled state will never attain the development goals laid out by the Pope for global humanity.

It is interesting to find parallels with John Paul II’s thinking on the global economy among leading economists and political leaders. As Louis Uchitelle pointed out in an article in the International Herald Tribune several years ago, leading economists such as Paul Krugman and Lester Thurow, despite their deep differences on many questions, are in agreement on others: "strengthening unions, pushing education to improve people's workplace skills, and income redistribution via government policy to reduce inequality." (17) And Peter D. Sutherland, who has served as Chairman of Goldman Sachs International and of the Overseas Development Council, stands in agreement with John Paul II's contention about the basic inadequacy of market mechanisms in terms of economic solidarity. "I have been personally and deeply committed to promoting the market system through my entire career," he insists. "Yet it is quite obvious to me that the market will never provide all of the answers to the problems of poverty and inequality." (18) Sutherland underlines the need for effective juridical structures that would be developed through a substantial revamping of existing institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

Columnist William Pfaff has spoken to the issue of the market economy in a tone reminiscent of John Paul II. Writing on the 1997 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he highlights some basic changes in the meeting that year. (19) Referring to the remarks of financier George Soros, Pfaff said that the WEF leadership now acknowledge that "the social ravages produced by the last two decades' elevation of corporate and individual self-interest over consideration of the common good." The idea that self-interested behavior in the marketplace would automatically advance the common interest now is recognized as naive ideology, or a self-interested self-deception. Soros, according to Pfaff, now recognizes a "totalitarian tendency" in unregulated market capitalism. Pfaff concludes that the 1997 World Economic Forum showed that "times are changing and the marketplace now increasingly is judged with political as well as economic discrimination and realism." (20) Soros, incidentally, has continued on the track he began at the 1997 WEF. In an article in the Winter 1998-1999 issue of Foreign Policy, Sorros wrote that "Public-policy measures are needed to stabilize the flows of international finance required by the global capitalist system and to keep the inherent instability of financial markets under control." (21) Pfaff himself, in an August 1999 column, questions the wisdom of imposing economic reform programs on beleaguered foreign societies that clearly in his judgment do much harm in the short term. For Pfaff the justification for such programs is based in a contested and unproven notion that they will produce long-term economic miracles. (22) Clearly such programs, promoted by the IMF, are an integral part of the global market economy today and the principal object of the major protests that have been a recent phenomenon at international economic meetings.

Two other important world figures have weighed into the debate on the global market economy along the same lines as John Paul II. The first is United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. At the 2001 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Annan called on world business leaders to give a "human face" to the global market. And at a Vatican sponsored conference hosted by Pope John Paul II at his summer residence at Castel Gondolfo, Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the global economy, if it is to remain successful, must develop a greater sensitivity to the human dimension of economic life. With the growing world impatience with continuing poverty and social injustice, Brzezinski argued that "it behooves the economic system to be increasingly sensitive to social responsibility. That sensitivity has to be as important a consideration as efficiency and performance in the determination of economic decisions and guiding economic development. That obligation pertains particularly to the international financial institutions." (23) And a deputy trade representative in the administration of Ronald Reagan Robert Lighthizer has acknowledged that most supporters of global markets endorse internationally what they would never sanction within the United States itself. Even free market enthusiasts with regard to the global economy generally accept regulation in terms of clean air, worker safety, minimum wage, etc. (24)

In recent years John Paul II has continued to hammer away at this theme that an unregulated market can by itself produce minimal standards of justice as judged from the framework of the Catholic notion of the common good. He has done this directly in his own addresses and well as through his representatives at the United Nations and through the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In a May 2001 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences the Pope recalled his statement in Centesimus Annus that the market must be controlled by the common good of the community: "Now that commerce and communications are no longer bound by borders, it is the universal common good which demands that control mechanisms should accompany the inherent logic of the market." (25) Kenneth Himes is quite correct in underling that the Pope here is drawing our attention to the current void in the international system. Himes sees the Pope telling us that "There is no agency or organization at the international level comparable to the state at the domestic level. For this reason Catholic social teaching is supportive of various regimes and treaties which bring a measure of governance to the developing global order. In this, the church's teaching will be at odds with those who equate globalization with an unfettered market system of economics." (26)

Within the present year John Paul has re-emphasized this need for global regulation of the market. Once again speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in May 2003 he insisted that "there can be little doubt of the need for guidelines that will place globalization at the service of authentic human development—the development of every human person and of the whole person—in full respect of the rights and dignity of all." (27)

One criticism that would be made of recent papal/Vatican statements on the market economy in a globalized setting is lack of specificity in terms of international oversight. This issue was addressed to some degree in July 2003. In a presentation to the United Nations Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC). Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's Permanent Observer at the United Nations submitted a proposal that has echoes of the private/governmental partnership outlined in the U.S. Bishops' Pastoral Letter on the Economy. The Vatican proposal calls for the establishment of a strong global alliance for the purpose of international development that would include international organizations, governments, NGOs, and civic leaders as well as representatives from agricultural and farming communities. Archbishop Migliore insisted that there must be an integrated strategy for addressing world poverty. He argued that at the core of this strategy must be the recognition of "a principal of collective responsibility, by which the shortcomings and less favorable conditions of poor countries should be tackled and remedied by the richer countries as if they were internal problems of their own." (28) The Vatican proposal presented by Archbishop Migliore includes a number of practical suggestions ranging from equitable trade regulations, comprehensive debt relief, an emphasis on agricultural practices that promote sustainable development, and enhanced technological sharing by developed states with the developing states. Migliore concluded his presentation by insisting that "the international community cannot permit one more day to pass wherein a real attempt to meet goals and make measurable progress toward the alleviation of poverty is not pursued with all of the energy and resolve that we can muster."

Pope John Paul II's perspective on the global market economy, which he has articulated throughout his papacy, both directly and through his official representatives, is clearly moving in a direction that is increasingly supported by a growing number of international economists and developmental experts. It is not his role or that of the churches in general to offer a precise delineation of a new international framework for the market economy. But the significant contribution of John Paul and the Vatican has been the insistence that a communitarian ethic must undergird any new framework that will meet both the conditions of viability and humanization.

Endnotes

(1) Cf David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place: Collected Statements of the Vatican and the United States Catholic Bishops on Economic Policy, 1891-1984. General Introduction and Document. Introductions by John T. Pawlikowski, OSM. (Washington: United States Catholic Conference, 1985), 353_361.

(2) For more on Catholic magisterial teaching on economic matters, cf. Charles E. Curran, Catholic Social Teaching: 1891 Present. A Historical, Theological And Social Analysis (Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press, 2002); John T. Pawlikowski, "Modern Catholic Teaching on the Economy: An Analysis and Evaluation," in Christianity and Capitalism: Perspectives on Religion, Liberalism and the Economy ed. Bruce Grelle and David A. Krueger, (Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1986), 3_24; and John T. Pawlikowski, "Papal Teaching on Economic Justice: Change and Continuity," in Religion and Public Life: The Legacy of Monsignor John A. Ryan. ed. Robert G. Kennedy, Mary Christine Athans, Bernard V. Brady, William C. McDonough, and Michael J. Naughton (Lanham/ New York/Oxford: University Press of America, 2001), 75-94.

(3) David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Market Place, 346.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Inid., 361.

(6) For the key sections of the Canadian Bishops' Statement, cf Ibid., 480-499.

(7) David M. Byers, ed., Justice in the Marketplace, 355.

(8) Michael Novak, "Tested by Our Own Ideals," John Paul II and Moral Theology: Readings in Moral Theology No. 10, ed. in Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick (New York: Paulist, 1998), 323.

(9) Donal Dorr, Qption for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Catholic Social Teaching, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992), 345-347.

(10) J. Bryan Hehir, "Reordering the World: John Paul II's Centesimus Annus," Commonweal 68 (14 June 1991): 394.

(11) David Hollenbach, "The Pope and Capitalism," America (June 1, 1991): 591.

(12) Cf. Catholic News Service, "Pope, criticizing Capitalism, laments widening rich-poor gap, ecological damage," National Catholic Reporter, 27(31 May 1992): 8.

(13) John Paul II, "What Church Social Teaching Is and Is Not," Origins 23 (23 Sept.1993): 257.

(14) John Paul II, "Toward a Balanced, Well-Regulated World Market," Origins 27 (5 June 1997): 43.

(15) Cf. Doug Cassel, "Globalization with a Human Face—Or Else?" World View Commentary No. 18, Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law, Feb. 5, 1999, 2.

(16) "Keep the Wealth Gap from Widening, Asks Pope. Appeals to World Leaders for Measures to Globalize Solidarity," Rome: Zenit News Agency (11 April 2002), 1.

(17) Cf. Louis Uchitelle, "An Economic Donnybrook That's More Than Academic," International Herald Tribune (20 Feb. 1997), 1;6. Also cf. point #7 of the U.S. Bishops' Statement "A Catholic Framework for Economic Life," New Theology Review 10 (May 1997): 103.

(18) Peter D. Sutherland, "Beyond the Market, a Different kind of Equity," International Herald Tribune, 20 February 1997, 20.

(19) Beginning in 2001 the World Economic Forum (WEF) began inviting world religious leaders as regular participants. I was such a participant in 2002 in New York. The jury is still out as to whether the religious leaders can have significant influence in the WEF. The 2003 meeting in Davos, Switzerland, may prove critical in this regard.

(20) William Pfaff, "Unregulated Market Capitalism Has Totalitarian Tendencies," Liberal Opinion Week (10 Feb. 1997): 25.

(21) George Soros, "Capitalism's Last Chance?" Foreign Policy (Winter 1998-99): 58.

(22) William Pfaff, "Western Economic Theories Have Left the Soviet Bloc Economies in Shambles," Chicago Tribune, 31 Aug. 1999, 15.

(23) Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Global Dilemmas Democracy Faces," Origins 28 (3 Sept. 1998): 210.

(24) New York Times, Dec. 1999, 27.

(25) Cf. Origins 31 (31 May 2001): 58.

(26) Kenneth Himes, "Globalization's Next Phase," Origins 32 (23 May 2002): 21.

(27) John Paul II, "Effective Mechanisms for Giving Globalization Proper Direction," Origins 33 (22 May 2003): 29.

(28) "Vatican Proposes World Alliance for Integral Development," Rome: Zenit News Agency, (5 July 2003).

Summary of Talk

Throughout his papacy Pope John Paul II has expressed great interest in the workings of the market economy. While he gave a certain approbation to the market economy as the best available framework for the global economy today, he did so with considerable hesitation on an ethical level. Whatever the ideal of the capitalistic market economy, it has not proven itself as yet from a moral point of view. Certain neoconservative writers have presented an incomplete picture of the Pope's stance on the market economy, something that he himself has addressed in several speeches in which he has laid out an authentic interpretation of his encyclical Centesimus Annus. In recent years a number of leading economists and international development experts have argued in a vein that parallels that of John Paul II and Vatican statements. They have joined the Pope in insisting on the need for an international framework for the global economy. They stand in agreement with the papal and Vatican view that the market economy cannot produce global justice through its inner dynamics alone. It requires a communitarian frame work that must be spelled out in a concrete international framework.

Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae: Are They in Conflict: Reflections in Light of the Current Controversy Regarding Catholicism and Politics

http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/CST/conferences/gaudium/papers/Pawlikowski.pdf