50 Years of Nostra Aetate

BBC R4

BBC Radio 4 has produced this programme on the anniversary of the Church document, Nostra Aetate – the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.  As a document, it’s only a few short paragraphs long, but it’s had a profound effect on our relations with other religious groups. The text of the document may be found here. The radio show may be heard by clicking on the image below.

R4

 

Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity

Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity

December 3, 2015

To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: 
Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians

After nearly two millennia of mutual hostility and alienation, we Orthodox Rabbis who lead communities, institutions and seminaries in Israel, the United States and Europe recognize the historic opportunity now before us. We seek to do the will of our Father in Heaven by accepting the hand offered to us by our Christian brothers and sisters. Jews and Christians must work together as partners to address the moral challenges of our era.

  1. The Shoah ended 70 years ago. It was the warped climax to centuries of disrespect, oppression and rejection of Jews and the consequent enmity that developed between Jews and Christians. In retrospect it is clear that the failure to break through this contempt and engage in constructive dialogue for the good of humankind weakened resistance to evil forces of anti-Semitism that engulfed the world in murder and genocide.
  1. We recognize that since the Second Vatican Council the official teachings of the Catholic Church about Judaism have changed fundamentally and irrevocably. The promulgation of Nostra Aetate fifty years ago started the process of reconciliation between our two communities. Nostra Aetate and the later official Church documents it inspired unequivocally reject any form of anti-Semitism, affirm the eternal Covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, reject deicide and stress the unique relationship between Christians and Jews, who were called “our elder brothers” by Pope John Paul II and “our fathers in faith” by Pope Benedict XVI. On this basis, Catholics and other Christian officials started an honest dialogue with Jews that has grown during the last five decades. We appreciate the Church’s affirmation of Israel’s unique place in sacred history and the ultimate world redemption. Today Jews have experienced sincere love and respect from many Christians that have been expressed in many dialogue initiatives, meetings and conferences around the world.
  1. As did Maimonides and Yehudah Halevi,[1] we acknowledge that Christianity is neither an accident nor an error, but the willed divine outcome and gift to the nations. In separating Judaism and Christianity, G-d willed a separation between partners with significant theological differences, not a separation between enemies. Rabbi Jacob Emden wrote that “Jesus brought a double goodness to the world. On the one hand he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically… and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. On the other hand he removed idols from the nations and obligated them in the seven commandments of Noah so that they would not behave like animals of the field, and instilled them firmly with moral traits…..Christians are congregations that work for the sake of heaven who are destined to endure, whose intent is for the sake of heaven and whose reward will not denied.”[2] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch taught us that Christians “have accepted the Jewish Bible of the Old Testament as a book of Divine revelation. They profess their belief in the G-d of Heaven and Earth as proclaimed in the Bible and they acknowledge the sovereignty of Divine Providence.”[3] Now that the Catholic Church has acknowledged the eternal Covenant between G-d and Israel, we Jews can acknowledge the ongoing constructive validity of Christianity as our partner in world redemption, without any fear that this will be exploited for missionary purposes. As stated by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s Bilateral Commission with the Holy See under the leadership of Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, “We are no longer enemies, but unequivocal partners in articulating the essential moral values for the survival and welfare of humanity”.[4] Neither of us can achieve G-d’s mission in this world alone.
  1. Both Jews and Christians have a common covenantal mission to perfect the world under the sovereignty of the Almighty, so that all humanity will call on His name and abominations will be removed from the earth. We understand the hesitation of both sides to affirm this truth and we call on our communities to overcome these fears in order to establish a relationship of trust and respect. Rabbi Hirsch also taught that the Talmud puts Christians “with regard to the duties between man and man on exactly the same level as Jews. They have a claim to the benefit of all the duties not only of justice but also of active human brotherly love.” In the past relations between Christians and Jews were often seen through the adversarial relationship of Esau and Jacob, yet Rabbi Naftali Zvi Berliner (Netziv) already understood at the end of the 19th century that Jews and Christians are destined by G-d to be loving partners: “In the future when the children of Esau are moved by pure spirit to recognize the people of Israel and their virtues, then we will also be moved to recognize that Esau is our brother.”[5]
  1. We Jews and Christians have more in common than what divides us: the ethical monotheism of Abraham; the relationship with the One Creator of Heaven and Earth, Who loves and cares for all of us; Jewish Sacred Scriptures; a belief in a binding tradition; and the values of life, family, compassionate righteousness, justice, inalienable freedom, universal love and ultimate world peace. Rabbi Moses Rivkis (Be’er Hagoleh) confirms this and wrote that “the Sages made reference only to the idolator of their day who did not believe in the creation of the world, the Exodus, G-d’s miraculous deeds and the divinely given law. In contrast, the people among whom we are scattered believe in all these essentials of religion.”[6]
  1. Our partnership in no way minimizes the ongoing differences between the two communities and two religions. We believe that G-d employs many messengers to reveal His truth, while we affirm the fundamental ethical obligations that all people have before G-d that Judaism has always taught through the universal Noahide covenant.
  1. In imitating G-d, Jews and Christians must offer models of service, unconditional love and holiness. We are all created in G-d’s Holy Image, and Jews and Christians will remain dedicated to the Covenant by playing an active role together in redeeming the world.

Initial signatories (in alphabetical order):

Rabbi Jehoshua Ahrens (Germany)
Rabbi Marc Angel (United States)
Rabbi Isak Asiel (Chief Rabbi of Serbia)
Rabbi David Bigman (Israel)
Rabbi David Bollag (Switzerland)
Rabbi David Brodman (Israel)
Rabbi Natan Lopez Cardozo (Israel)
Rabbi Kotel Dadon (Chief Rabbi of Croatia)
Rav Yehudah Gilad (Israel)
Rabbi Alon Goshen-Gottstein (Israel)
Rabbi Irving Greenberg (United States)
Rabbi Marc Raphael Guedj (Switzerland)
Rabbi Eugene Korn (Israel)
Rabbi Daniel Landes (Israel)
Rabbi Steven Langnas (Germany)
Rabbi Benjamin Lau (Israel)
Rabbi Simon Livson (Chief Rabbi of Finland)
Rabbi Asher Lopatin (United States)
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Israel)
Rabbi David Rosen (Israel)
Rabbi Naftali Rothenberg (Israel)
Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger (Israel)
Rabbi Shmuel Sirat (France)
Rabbi Daniel Sperber (Israel)
Rabbi Jeremiah Wohlberg (United States)
Rabbi Alan Yuter (Israel)

Christmas Events and Mass Times

Christmas Mass Card

Unless otherwise indicated, all events are at St David and St Patrick’s Church.

Thursday 10th December, 7:00pm: Youth Christmas Concert with Neyland Ladies Choir.

Friday 18th December, 6:30pm: Penitential Service with visiting priests.

Friday 18th – Sunday 20th December: Youth Retreat – Charismatic gifts of the Spirit.

Sunday 20th December 10:00am: Sunday Mass led by the Youth.

 

Wednesday 23rd December 10:00am: Mass

Wednesday 23rd December 10:30am: Confessions

 

Thursday 24th December, Christmas Eve, 10:00am: Mass

Thursday 24th December, Christmas Eve, 9:30pm: Congregational Carols

Thursday 24th December, Christmas Eve, 10:00pm: Midnight Mass

 

Friday 25th December, Christmas Day, 10:00am: Mass

Friday 25th December, Christmas Day, 11:30am: Mass (Immaculate Conception Church, Narberth).

 

Saturday 26th December, St Stephen’s Day, 6:00pm: Vigil Mass of Sunday

 

Sunday 27th December, Feast of the Holy Family, 10:00am: Mass

Sunday 27th December, Feast of the Holy Family, 5:00pm: Mass (Immaculate Conception Church, Narberth)

Organ Donation

medical-_110005710-011314int

In a few days time every adult who has lived in Wales for more than one year will, unless they have opted out, become an organ donor. If you do not wish to be an organ donor, then you must take steps to withdraw your consent. Unlike in the rest of the UK (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland) where organ donation requires explicit consent, here in Wales the law is changing so that consent is implicitly understood unless you choose to actively not-consent.

 

If you wish to explicitly not consent to organ donation, you may do so on-line here: http://organdonationwales.org or by telephoning 0300 123 2323

 

Many of us are happy to donate organs to those who need them. The gift of passing on life to another is to be applauded as a great gift of altruistic caring. Indeed, the Church teaches that ‘the free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.’[1]

 

However, the law as it stands does give rise to some concerns, which should be understood prior to making a decision regarding organ donation.

 

On Consent

The Catholic Church is clear that donation of ones organs should be done with the explicit consent of the donor. The Church teaches:

 

Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.[2]

 

Notice here that the Church asks for explicit consent for donation to be morally acceptable, this has been removed from  residents in Wales by an Act of the Welsh Assembly. Whether we like it or not, Catholic faithful are no longer able to exercise explicit consent to organ donation (which gives rise to much broader questions of liberty and freedom of a Catholic in this country). As the Law was being proposed, our own bishop stated:

 

In normal everyday matters, few adults would allow anyone else to presume their consent to something, without asking them beforehand. When it involves donating something as important as a persons own organs, consent should not be presumed, but should be explicitly requested and voluntarily given. Not to do so would seem to violate human rights. The state should be maintaining the rights and dignity of each human being rather than usurping them itself. Silence is NOT consent. These proposals have no place on the statute books of a free and democratic nation.[3]

 

The broader questions of liberty and freedom are outside the scope of this article, but the information is presented here to show that the Church is, in principle, not in favour of this law.

 

Given that we do in principle disagree with this law but cannot live out our Catholic principles, we must then turn to a new question which is to address the practicalities of living with the law, as it now stands.

 

On Death[4]

The Church teaches that for those organs which are essential to life, you must be dead to donate them – note above the sentence ‘it is not morally admissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being even in order to delay the death of other persons’.[5] This however may be problematic as the understanding of what death is, is not universal.

 

Prior to 1968, the classical distinction of death was that the heart and stopped beating (so cessation of the heart/lung system leading to a cessation in respiration) and the cessation of brain function: this is traditional cardiopulmonary death. This posed a problem however for those who were exploring the then new science of heart-transplants (the first heart transplant was in South Africa in December 1967 where the donee survived for 18 days).

 

Heart, lung and liver transplants need to be very fresh and cannot be taken from bodies that have been damaged by lack of oxygenated blood. The traditional point when death is diagnosed would be too late to rescue these organs.[6] As such as task force was setup to ‘examine ethical problems in connection with the ‘hopelessly unconscious patient’ ’[7]

 

This task force, known as the Harvard Committee produced, under the chairmanship of the anaesthesiologist Henry Beecher, a report[8] which set out a new definition of death called ‘brain death’. The ad hoc committee coined the term ‘irreversible coma’ which was used interchangeably with, and eventually became the term ‘brain death’. Margaret Lock from McGill University, Montreal, Canada writes about the two reasons given for inventing this new criteria of death, she states:

 

[the committee] stated that there were increased burdens on patients, families, and hospital resources caused by “improvements in resuscitative and support measures” and secondly, and more ominously, that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation” (Ad Hoc Committee, 1968, p.337). Over the years it has been repeated many times that the ‘real’ reason for creating brain death was in order that organs could be procured legally.[9]

 

It would seem to be the case that the current use of the word ‘death’ in the UK, which has at is root the notion of ‘brain death’ does not necessarily conform with the notion of death as many moralists in the Catholic Church would understand it. Difficulty arises too in that different countries and states don’t share the same exact definition of brain death – thus making it hard for the Church to definitively say that it does or doesn’t agree with ‘brain death’ as this is not a fixed term.[10]

 

In fact, there maybe cases of people in a critical condition who are declared as legally dead (by being brain dead) and who are seemingly suitable for transplantation, yet who are still be alive and with the possibility of recovery should aggressive medical treatment be given. Brain death can mean the cessation of part or all brain activity, but it does not follow that the remaining bodily systems have ceased to function. In fact, for organ donation where the organs have to be fresh, brain death means that the rest of the body systems should be functioning properly. A brain dead patient has often been liked to the ‘beating-heart cadaver’.[11]

 

On Life

There is much good which can be effected by making the gift of ones body parts to another person, be they known or unknown. In the case of some body parts (kidney, bone marrow, stem cells from an umbilical cord etc.) the donation may not even require death to have occurred. For those who choose to ethically donate organs, pre- or post-mortem, then they should be rightly proud that they have helped another person to live their life in the fullest possible way. For those who, after death, leave their bodies to medical science; they too will be aware that their decision leads to the advancement of medical science for the common good of all humanity. There are those who have accepted organs in good faith, and they have the joy of being able to live and fulfil their earthly vocation. But organ donation must be implemented in a good, wholesome, and morally acceptable way.

 

 

Conclusion

It is for each person to weigh up the arguments and to decide for themselves whether or not they chose to opt out of the organ donation system. It is the free choice of every adult to decide what to do. Nevertheless, decisions should be made in full view of the facts, be they positive or negative, to a particular viewpoint. The Church and her clergy would be failing in their duty to teach if they did not make known and raise concerns about certain courses of action, while at the same time extolling the merits and virtues of other actions.

 

It is my personal opinion that, while I and the Church support organ donation, the way it is now being implemented in Wales is contrary to the moral teachings of the Church and I, while I may still chose to donate specific organs at specific future dates, have opted out of the presumed consent situation. Having weighted up all the options and arguments, I have actively withheld my consent.

 

It should be noted on the basis of integrity that registering an objection to becoming an organ donor also means that one is also objecting to accepting organs given on the same terms. If one is not happy to give of one’s own organs (because they believe they may be harvested while they are still alive), then one cannot accept organs from a person who equally may be understood to not yet be dead.

 

A footnote to those who have already donated or received organs

Fr Neil Evans, of the Diocese of Menevia, in a personal reflection to his parish makes the following observations which would be useful to share here:

 

I am acutely aware that someone reading (this article) may already have given their consent to the transplantation of vital organs from a loved one judged to be dead. There remains great uncertainty about the definition and understanding of death and the Catholic Church herself has not yet come to a definitive acceptance or rejection of the concept of “brain death”, and I trust that those who have already graciously consented to the gift of donated organs will derive comfort from the uncertainty of these issues.[12]

 

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2301.

[2] Ibid., 2296

[3] Burns, T.M., Human Organ Donation and Presumed Consent, 12th January 2012.

[4] Much of this section is taken from a previous work of the author, viz.: Bradley, L.F., The Definition of Brain Death and some of the Ethical Questions this Raises 11th May 2012. A private publication available by contacting the author.

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2296

[6] Cf., Jones, A. J., Organ Transplants and the Definition of Death Catholic Truth Society (London, 2001) 11

[7] Lock, M., Anthropology and Medicine 9 (2) (April 2002) Inventing a New Death and Making it Believable, 103

[8] Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Death Journal of the American Medical Association 205 (1968)

[9] Lock, Ibid., 103

[10] For example, in some places ‘brain death’ equates to death of the brain stem, while in other locals it means the death of the brain stem and cerebellum.

[11] Jones, Ibid., 12

[12] Evans, N., Important Changes to Organ Donation in Wales: A Personal Reflection 16th November 2015.

Starbucks Red Cup.

There seems to be a lot of ink being spilled over the controversy that is the ‘red cup’ of Starbucks and whether it is for or against Christmas. While not getting much attention in the UK, it’s a hot topic in the US!

red cup 2

For those who don’t know, Starbucks have a new Christmas cup and it’s plain red. That’s it, no holly, no snowflakes and certainly no baby Jesus. But is it making an anti-christian statement by being so plain, or is it trying to do something Christmasy by being red (and not white)?
Perhaps it’s time, as Advent approaches, that as Christians we stopped criticising the colour of cups and what they may or may not stand for, and stood up for ourselves and what we stand for. We stand for our wonderful Christmas message that God became man – for us. What a great gift. Do we know what we are for and do we proclaim that message?

The Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires

Our Catholic faith teaches us that the bread and wine used at Mass, truly become the body and blood of Christ. When we look at the host, we gaze upon Jesus Christ himself. But there are occasions when even the aspect of the host is changed too, and the veiled reality of the flesh-seen-as-bread is unmasked, and we see the host for what it is – real flesh and blood.