Jews, Muslims and Christians

THE criteria whereby the Holy See conducts its diplomatic activities are not always easy to analyse, and
expressions such as "the Church says ." are often, as a
result, prone to misunderstanding. The fact that "the Church" ie, the Holy See has "diplomatic relations" with some countries and not with dthers is a further and distressing cause of misunderstanding.
It was thus not entirely the fault of the Libyan Arab Republic and its "Islamic" delegation that the Vatican representatives found themselves in such an embarrassing position at the end of a recent ecumenical conference in Tripoli. Indeed, the Libyan President specifically and personally asked for some clarification on the extent to which, if any, "the Vatican" was a "religious state."
The tortuous and somewhat bewildering answer he received from the Catholic side illustrated the difficulty of defining where the Holy See's political brief ends, and where its essentially religious nature begins.
Thus, when a resolution was read out at the end of the conference containing an unworthy attack on Israel the Vatican delegation had to suspend its assent and announce that such a matter could only be definitively dealt with by a "higher authority."
The resolution is offensive since it reflects not a general view but only that of Muslim nationalism which differentiates Judaism from Zionism and equates the latter with "racism." It is significant, however, that at as first meeting after a UN resolution had made a similar equation, the Executive Committee of the British Council of Christians and Jews declared that "this resolution will be regarded as one of the greatest blemishes in the history of the United Nations."
The meeting recalled the statement of the late Cardinal Heenan, presiding over the council's annual general meeting held last autumn (just four weeks before the adoption of the UN resolution in question) when he said: "It is true that overt antisemitism is dead, but underneath the surface it is there sometimes, not always called anti-semitism, but sometimes call
ed anti-Zionism . .• The recent stratagem attempted by the Muslims in Libya will make further ecumenical moves on that particular front very difficult for the time being, Use of a supposedly religious occasion for political propaganda purposes and as an attempt to misrepresent the attitude of the Holy See to Jewry — for .iom the Land of Israel is sacred — is unattractive and childish.
The Holy See, however, is partly to blame for not making a real effort, at long last, to break away from the embarrassing and unrealistic consequences of acting "diplomatically" while also expecting to he taken seriously as an authoritative voice in religious affairs on a world-wide stage.
Non-recognition of Israel and Jordan, for example, because the frontiers have not yet been agreed, is a nonsense based on a technical excuse. 'A similar excuse could be used for not recognising the Republic of Ireland whose border with the North is by no means agreed —least of all as far as Ireland itself is concerned.
This is no more of a "technical hitch" than some of those used as a cover for the kind of Vatican diplomacy which can do immense harm to the Church as an independent moral voice in the world.