Pope’s voice

On March 10th in Vatican there is going to be an official presentation of a new book by the Pope Benedict XVI. The book will be released in the atmosphere of sensation and accuses of the change of interpretation of history. Italian media find the words of Benedict XVI very important, giving Jews total exculpation, after being accused for condemning Jesus to death. I do not feel competent enough to guess the thoughts of the “head of the Church”, but what actually happens is that the Pope’s words had completely changed the political view and will be by many treated as the modest, but still political manifestation over the popular way of thinking. Is it really what is going to happen? In his book the Pope is asking a fundamental question: “Firstly, let us ask a question: Who were the prosecutors? Who had insisted to crucify Jesus?”. What is more, the author seems to give his opponents and one-side readers some arguments writing: “Jesus was not a political rebel” and then is even more controversial: “In Evangelical stories there are differences which we should consider. Due to John there are simply the Jews. But word does not absolutely mean - as a modern reader can possibly think - an Israeli nation as a whole”, it is even more obvious that it does not have “racial” meaning. Does the Pope relate directly into a political context he wants to be promoted? The second volume of his personal thoughts with the subtitle “Holy Week: From the entrance into Jerusalem to the Ressurection”, which was released almost four years after the first one, is a detailed analysis of the Gospels coming with the political analysis of that times. He creates a connection between that time and the modern times: “We can all see the terrible results of violence motivated by the religion. The Kingdom of God, kingdom of humanity cannot be established using violence. Despite the attemps of using the religion and its idealistic motivation, it still remains a favourite tool of Antichrist. Violence does not serve humanity but anti-humanity”. The author seems to give a signal for the people interested in Vatican political relations and its engagement in the worlds politics. The case of a new point of view from Jewish community is in this context very significant and will be interpreted for a very long time. An example? Polish Gazeta Wyborcza writes, that the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, after being acknowledged by the Pope’s writings has said, that despite the council‘s declaration in “Nostra Aetate” from 1965 and rejection of the theory of Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion (we can find there an opinion that “we should not show the Jews as the cursed by God outcasts”), many catholics still keep this opinion. He claims that the rejection of the “false arguments in the personal book, is right, but probably not enough”. What kind of meaning would then have for us the judging words of Lauder who said that: “The Jews from all over the world very appreciate, that this Pope is absolutely determined to keep good relations between the Christians and the Jews”. Are the words of the Pope misinterpreted? Do they unmask his political intentions? What can they mean during the Middle East crisis? Should we understand Pope’s words so straightforward? One thing we can be sure - The Church has been shaping political relations for over two millennia as much as she could afford and as much as her opponents allowed her to do so.