 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
Judas in Dachau By Antonio C. Abaya Written May 02, 2006 For the Standard Today, May 04 issue In the 2004 German film Der Neunte Tag (The Ninth Day), by Volker Schlondorff, a Roman Catholic priest named Henri Kremer, imprisoned in the hell that was the Dachau concentration camp for anti-Nazi activities, and played by the appropriately gaunt-faced and skeletal Ulrich Matthes, is suddenly and inexplicably released from detention and given train fare back to his native Luxemburg. He soon finds out why, as Gestapo agents meet him at the train station in Luxemburg and give him a ride to his family�s new home, their old home having been commandeered by the SS. As explained the next day by his SS handler, Untersturmfuhrer Gebhardt, Abbe Kremer (who comes from a prominent Luxemburger family) is being given nine days� leave to secure an audience with the Bishop of Luxemburg, to convince him to sign a statement prepared by Gebhardt, which says: �We the Bishops of Luxemburg are supporters of National Socialism�s (read, Nazi) church policy. We announce this with full unanimity in the name of our Faith. This is to give our Holy Catholic Church a role. Only if we stand on the side of the Third Reich and its Fuhrer Adolf Hitler can this be possible.� As with many globalized DVDs these days, the English subtitles are sometimes partly incomprehensible. Fortunately, this one has German subtitles for the hearing-impaired (deutsche fur horgeschadigte) which obviously had come with the original and was faithful to the dialogue, and which thus help make the incomprehensible more comprehensible to those who know a smattering of German. As far as I could make out, some of the meatier dialogues went like this: Kremer: But Luxemburg is not Judas country. Gebhardt: Judas. I have long pondered on the Judas phenomenon. He is a fascinating figure. Judas and Jesus were like brothers. Each one depended on the other. Kremer: Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 silver coins. Gebhardt: But he did not take a single coin. He threw all of them into the Temple. It shows that he did not betray Jesus for money. Kremer: Judas is cursed. God abandoned him. Gebhardt: That�s what we learned in religion class. But I suggest that Judas was a devout man. Perhaps the most devout of the apostles. Clearly, he was an idealist. He was a Jewish revolutionary nationalist. With the help of Jesus, he was planting the seeds of rebellion. Against the King, against the regime, against the high priests. Kremer: (Shouting) Say no more! What are these theological discussions for? I have no interest in discussing my beliefs with you! Gebhardt: Judas was an adventurous man. He wanted to change the world. He saw in Jesus his wordly Leader. But God gave him another mission. Kremer: Betrayal does not belong in God�s Plan! It is only a small step in this Plan. Gebhardt: The Holy Bible says Judas alone among the apostles was strong enough to fulfill this Plan. Without Judas, there would have been no Crucifixion, no fulfillment of God�s Plan. Kremer: Without Judas, there would have been no universal Church? Gebhardt: Now you understand me. I will not give away the rest of the plot. Suffice it is to add that Volker Schlondorff (who also directed The Tin Drum, based on the novel by Gunter Grass) wrote the screenplay for and directed Der Neunte Tag in 2004, two years before the Gospel of Judas was made public and became controversial. And, of course, the Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis gave Judas a fictive heroic role in his 1960 novel The Last Temptation of Christ, shaming the vacillating Jesus back to his messianic mission. Perhaps the traditional image of Judas as traitor and betrayer fit only to be vilified needs a rethink. Without Judas, there would have been no Crucifixion, no Resurrection, no Salvation, no Christianity, no Vatican, no Pope. The reaction of Pope Benedict XVI to the Gospel of Judas, that Judas �rejected God�s Love� lacks gravitas. Said the Pope last Holy Thursday: �In Judas, we see the nature of this rejection still more clearly. He judges Jesus according to the categories of power and success. For him, power and success alone are the reality, love does not count.� Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Judas, to show his love for Jesus, pretended that he could not locate Jesus in the dark and did his best to hide and disguise him so that he could escape arrest by the Roman soldiers. Whom would they have crucified? No doubt, any other hapless Jew who chanced to be nearby. Crucifixion was standard Roman punishment for political crimes, and the Romans, who disliked Jews, crucified thousands of rebellious Jews, not just Jesus, for disturbing the peace of the Roman Empire.. What would that hypothetical scenario have done for the birth of Christianity? (Three hundred fifty years before the Romans, the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great, meeting stiff resistance from defenders of Gaza, not far from Jerusalem, crucified 3,000 of them along the Mediterranean beach. Crucifixion was the firing squad of the day and was used much more liberally than the firing squad is today.) The Roman Catholic Church in Luxemburg may have resisted Nazi attempts to co-opt it, as Der Neunte Tag implies, but it is historical fact that the Vatican signed scratch-our-backs-we�ll-scratch-yours concordats with Hitler�s Germany, Mussolini�s Italy, Franco�s Spain and Salazar�s Portugal, during the papacy of Pius XII. I doubt if Benedict XVI would have done any differently if he were Pope at that time, coming as he does from Bavaria, the most Catholic part of Germany and also the main power base of Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s who subsequently created Dachau and other macabre theme parks. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Articles since 2002 in www.tapatt.org. Current articles accessible also in tonyabaya.multiply.com. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Judas in Dachau� Dear Mr. Abaya, I read your opinion piece in Thursday's 'Manila Standard Today' with great interest and some sadness. It is not right that you should write in this way about such fine and holy men as Pope's Pius XII and Benedict XVI, particularly without regard to the facts. To understand what I mean you need only go to: www.catholic.com , go to the Answers Guide column and scroll down to 'Pius XII and the Jews' With respect to Pope Benedict XVI, might I suggest you have a look at: page 13, 'Nazism and War' in "Let God's light shine forth: the spiritual vision of Pope Benedict XVI" edited by Robert Moynihan (Doubleday 2005). Dermott Kelly, [email protected] Australia, May 04, 2006 MY REPLY. What exactly are you disputing? That a) the Vativcan under Pius XII signed concordats with the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar? and b) that Joseph Ratzinger would not have done any differently if he were Pope then, since he comes from Bavaria, the main power base of the Nazis? If so, say so, and use your own words and logic, instead of telling me to go to this or that website. That's a lazy way of carrying on a discussion. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Thank you for your reply. You are quite right, I have been quite lazy in our little discussion but the finger could just as well be pointed at yourself. Why should I have to do the basic research you should have done before writing your opinion piece �Judas and Dachau�? Maybe you believe that the facts shouldn�t get in the way of a good story, or should that be any old story. To quote from your article: �It is historical fact that the Vatican signed scratch-our-backs-we�ll-scratch-yours concordats with Hitler�s Germany, Mussolini�s Italy .. during the papacy of Pius XII� Let�s just deal with Hitler first. Your insinuation is that Pius XII was prepared to turn a blind eye to Nazi atrocities in Germany if they left the church alone there. The concordat with Hitler The following was taken from: www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2830 which is a review of �Hitler�s Pope� by John Cornwall and a response to the claims made in this book. .. concordats .. Their primary end has always been to safeguard and defend the freedom of worship of the faithful (especially in countries where Catholics are a minority and under attack) and the essential elements of Catholic life, such as the sanctity of marriage, Catholic education of children and the free expansion of Catholic associations. Pacelli, as nuncio in Germany and later as secretary of state, was interested in concluding a concordat with Germany. Pacelli undertook this when Germany still had a democratic government. When Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933, Pacelli was not in favor of concluding such a treaty with Hitler in the immediate future. Hitler made several reassuring statements that he would protect the two major Christian denominations in Germany, the Protestant and Catholic churches, but Pacelli and many others did not trust such statements and wanted to see if Hitler would indeed put an end to the persecution of Catholics that in many places was already in full swing. In a surprise move, Hitler spontaneously offered an extremely favorable concordat to the Catholic Church. Could Pius XI and Secretary of State Pacelli have refused this offer? If the Church had rejected the Concordat, all Hitler needed to do was publish the concessions he had offered the Church and then add, "I have extended a hand of peace, but this was brutally rejected. Well, if they do not want peace, they can have war." The brief negotiations presented serious problems for both sides. Finally, Hitler, insisting on a quick end to negotiations, made considerable concessions; after all, he would not observe the agreement anyway. Cornwell falsely states that Pacelli wanted the Concordat, concluded on July 20, 1933, with Hitler. He also erroneously maintains that it was stipulated in the Concordat that Catholics should abstain from political and social activities, despite the fact that there is nothing of the sort in the Concordat, neither was there any secret agreement to this effect. Article 32 of the Concordat only stipulates that clerics and religious should not be members of political parties or engage in party politics. Nothing of this sort was stipulated with regard to lay Catholics. Article 31 assured full freedom to religious, cultural, and social Catholic associations, even trade unions. Cornwell also affirms that the Center Party dissolved itself under pressure from Pacelli. In addition to other trustworthy sources, an article by Professor Robert Leiber, the closest collaborator of Pacelli for decades, demonstrates that Pacelli never exercised any influence on the Center Party and was seriously annoyed that it had dissolved itself. Another question is whether Pius XI and Pacelli ever believed that Hitler would keep his promises. A few weeks after the signing of the Concordat, the British charge d'affaires at the Holy See, Ivone Kirkpatrick, discussed this with Cardinal Pacelli. Kirkpatrick asked if Hitler, after coming to power, might be more moderate. Pacelli replied that he saw no reason for such facile optimism. He added that he was sure Hitler would not observe the Concordat but hoped that he would not violate all the articles at one and the same time. Contrary to Cornwell's charges, the German bishops were in good time and fully consulted about the project Concordat. In fact, the plenary assembly of the German bishops held at the end of May and the beginning of June 1933 dealt extensively with this project and was subsequently always consulted. The same applies to all kinds of other leaders of the Catholic Church in Germany. They all hoped the Concordat would at least give German Catholics some respite and provide the Holy See with a legal document, valid in international law, to protest against treaty violations. In L'Osservatore Romano, on Vatican Radio, and from the German episcopacy, statements were issued that the Concordat in no way implied an approbation of Nazi ideology, which the Church did not and could not approve. Thus, numerous facts contradict statements made by Cornwell that German Catholics were induced to believe that the Church had approved Nazi ideology or even forbade them to defend their Catholic faith against the attacks by the Nazis. The first effects of the Concordat seemed positive. Hitler issued several decrees by which previous violations of Catholic rights were revoked, but it did not take long before the first violations of the Concordat began. The Holy See protested each time, nearly always without success or even without receiving an answer. In 1937, the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning preoccupation"�not, as Cornwell wrongly translates, "With deep concern") was published. This letter, addressed to the bishops of the world, is the only document of this kind ever originally published in German. This was to make clear what situation and which country the document concerned. It is a scathing accusation of the many breaches of an international treaty by the Nazis and, at the same time, a very outspoken condemnation of Nazi theories of a totalitarian state and its theories of blood and race. The Nazis reacted furiously, confiscating the twelve printing shops in which this document (after having been smuggled into Germany) had been printed and sending many people to prison and concentration camps. It is indeed tragic that this public denunciation of the untrustworthiness of Hitler obviously did not sufficiently impress politicians of the free world. To be fair, I do think you are probably right to say that Benedict XVI would have done the same thing, but not for the reason you imply, that he was pro-Nazi, but rather because he was in fact very anti-Nazi. To quote from your article again: � .. Bavaria, the most Catholic and the most Nazi part of Germany.� Again, the insinuation is of an alliance between the two when there was patently none. The Gospel of Judas The following comes from: www.cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=110 Is the so-called "gospel of Judas" an authentic document? Is it a Gospel with implications for Christianity? The release of the text of the gospel of Judas has been widely reported by the secular media. Though mentioned by St. Irenaeus in the second century, the gospel of Judas disappeared from the record. This is likely due to its rejection by the Church, as its contents were not in accord with the authentic Christian faith. A copy of it surfaced in the latter half of the 20th century, and it has been undergoing translation and preparation for publication in the last few years. The gospel of Judas is likely a genuine ancient document. However, the gospel of Judas was not written by Judas. Further, it does not preserve authentic historical information about Judas or his relationship with Jesus, and it does not provide reliable information about Christianity. Indeed, the "gospel" is not really a gospel in the biblical sense. The word "gospel" means "good news," and the benchmark was established by Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke. The Gospels focus on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. The gospel of Judas, on the other hand, contributes more to an understanding of heretical Gnosticism than of authentic Christianity. The release of the document is an occasion for Christians to better understand this ancient heresy. The "gospel" of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot in a significantly different light than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For example, Jesus is portrayed as telling Judas that He will share with Judas alone "the mysteries of the kingdom." The Gnostics claimed that salvation comes by secret knowledge (gnosis = "knowledge"), as the above passage reflects. This idea directly opposes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is to be proclaimed to the whole world (cf. Mt. 28:19-20, Mk. 16: 15, and Lk. 24:47). As is typical of Gnostic writings, the gospel of Judas reinterprets biblical events and their significance in a dualistic fashion (where matter is set against spirit). In the gospel of Judas, Jesus asks Judas to hand Him over to the authorities so that His body can be sacrificed. Jesus tells Judas that he "will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." "The man that clothes me" refers to Jesus� body. This reflects the Gnostic idea that the body is evil and the spirit must be set free from it. The soul is the (spiritual) essence of the person and is trapped inside the physical body. The gospel of Judas, then, portrays Judas as a liberator of a gnostic Jesus. The meaning of the crucifixion is radically altered, and betrayal is reinterpreted as liberation. Furthermore, like the other Gnostic "gospels," the Gospel of Judas was written well after the canonical Gospels and does not provide a reliable history of Jesus� life. In his famous work, Against Heresies (c. 180 A.D.), St. Irenaeus makes reference to a "gospel of Judas," which seems to be the same or a related document: [The Cainites] declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas (Bk. 1, Ch. 31, no. 1, emphasis added). This gospel of Judas and many other Gnostic writings were rejected by the early Church, as they did not reflect the lived faith received from the apostles and expressed in the authentic canonical Gospels. As scripture scholar Fr. Joseph Ponessa explains: Neither the Holy Spirit nor Judas himself is responsible for this piece of fiction. Judas committed suicide, and a hundred years later somebody tried to imagine what must have gone through his mind. The Bishops and Fathers of the Church rejected the document, and theirs is the definitive judgment. Dermott Kelly, [email protected] Australia, May 05, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr Abaya, I feel I must apologize for my previous mail. It was a 'hot-headed' action on my part and not conducive to a reasoned debate. My apologies again. Yours sincerely, Dermott Kelly, [email protected] Australia, May 08, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony: I would like to think that Judas loved Jesus, but that he betrayed Jesus and repented later. I would also like to believe that, if Judas did not betray Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemany, there would have been a hundred other Israelites would have done so. To use Judas' act of betrayal as sole key to the establishment of the Christian faith, as Gebhardt suggests, is a bit farfetched, don't you think? Jimmy Pimentel, [email protected] Sydney, Australia, May 05, 2006 MY REPLY. But that would be mere speculation, like Dan Brown�s hypothesis that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Good I have been saying that for ten years and lately over this Internet. Now you hve realized the import of my statement. Let me be Gore Vidal first and you will quote me every week.\ Ross Tipon, [email protected] Baguio City, May 05, 2006 MY REPLY. You may have been saying this for ten years, but this is the first time that I read it from you. At any rate, Kazantzakis was ahead of you by about 36 years. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww My reaction. Firstly, I think its only a movie. Secondly, we may not know exactly what happend but th crux of the matter is the message not only the Historical death of Jesus Christ but the resurrection. Victory over death, ika nga. Two kinds of death ang tao, yung physical and spiritual. Jesus died physically but when He rose, Spiritual conquer over death yun. Death is like Sin, Sir. Ang tanong, san ba papunta lahat ng usapin na iyan? Mike Delgado, [email protected] May 05, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Surely the Vatican is deeply unhappy about the discovery of the "Judas Gospel" that they had tried to hide from the faithful for centuries. While it does prove that Judas could have obeyed Jesus, it does not explain why he hanged himself. Which makes me wonder if Judas was murdered and his death was made to look like a suicide. The research on the "Secret Bible" sponsored by the National Geographic is truly liberating for those who seek truth rather than rely on faith alone. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code posed tantalizing questions on the veracity of the New Testament. Not surprisingly, Brown ended the novel with the same big question; probably to avoid antagonizing millions. I hope you could suggest answers to the second question on Judas, as I'm sure I'm not alone in asking it. Did Judas hang himself or was he murdered? Rosalinda Olsen, [email protected] Norway, May 05, 2006 MY REPLY. I have absolutely no idea. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir, I don't know how I got on your mailing list, but I sure do enjoy to be on it. As a German, who lives in the Philippines since now almost 18 years, it is refreshing to see, or read for that matter, someone�s thoughts that cut right through the obfuscation and fogginess of today's "newspeak". I thoroughly enjoyed your piece on the pope, particularly this one, being a German and of an age that cannot claim innocence to the horrors of the Nazi regime. In spite of all the efforts made by the last two generations of Germans to come clean of the past and stare it in the naked eye, this effort has to this day never been made by the German Roman Catholic Church. Good to see and hear that there are people out there who can see that, although they belong to a different culture or ethnic background. Makes me think that common human decency and the ability to think independently are universal traits of the human species, a thought that gives me great comfort in these trying times. Ulrich Bosse, [email protected] currently in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia May 06, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony Your observation is interesting throughout. I would like to see Schlondorff's "Der Neunte Tag." Incidentally, during our five day WW II occupation of Rome, my Third Division was ordered to parade before Pope Pius XII. Many of us objected as we previously saw in newsreels Pius XII blessing troops, sprinkling holy water, etc on the troops of Franco, Hitler and Mussolini. .. Jack Sherman, [email protected] May 06, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Greetings! I have always viewed the conventional tale of Judas with great skepticism. In the first place, why do the high priests of that time need him to finger Jesus when He was already a well-known figure? I thought His movements were monitored by His enemies and if we believe the biblical accounts, He wasn't exactly hiding from the police of era (He was in fact asking to be arrested); they could have arrested Him anytime He preached among the multitudes without assistance from Judas. Without the so-called betrayal, Jesus would have been arrested, tortured and crucified anyway; Christianity would have been established and developed to what it is today notwithstanding. Was Judas a hero? To me, he is as much a hero as many of our politicians nowadays, who change allegiances at the drop of a hat. We do not condemn these politicians; instead, we elect them repeatedly. Did Judas betray Jesus? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? Not too long ago, the Filipinos threw out Pres. Estrada for offenses which merit capital punishment if proven, we also had the usual coterie of betrayers in this episode who were rewarded with high positions; now he is a popular figure of hero-like proportions according to some surveys. Wait a few more years and we will be erecting statues in honor of Pres. Marcos. Nowadays, people all over the world are finding that monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tes-tung are not really bad fellows at all (even Osama Bin Laden is a hero to somebody somewhere), and they are not likely to wait as long as Judas did for someone to consider them as heroes. Compared to these rascals, Judas was a saint and totally undeserving of the opprobium heaped upon him for two throusand years. Poor Judas! Herminigildo Gutierrez, [email protected] May 08, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |