The Patriarch of the Holy Land : “Live Here and Now the Way of the Heavenly Jerusalem”

(s.m.) Since May 11, the let­ter has also been avai­la­ble in book­sto­res, prin­ted by Libreria Editrice Vaticana with the title “They retur­ned to Jerusalem with great joy,” taken from the Gospel account of the disci­ples of Emmaus.

This is the late­st let­ter to the fai­th­ful from the patriarch of the Holy Land, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa. A lon­ger let­ter than usual and very spe­cial, as said from the very fir­st lines. Not yet ano­ther ana­ly­sis or denun­cia­tion of a “situa­tion of con­flict – poli­ti­cal, mili­ta­ry, spi­ri­tual – a con­flict we fear will con­ti­nue for years to come,” but a tool for reflec­tion “to be read slo­w­ly within our eccle­sial con­tex­ts, our com­mu­ni­ties, mona­ste­ries, and fami­lies” to “help each per­son reflect on how to live our Christian faith in this land today in the light of the Gospel.”

What is imme­dia­te­ly stri­king is the very strong con­so­nan­ce bet­ween this let­ter and Pope Leo’s vision of the world and histo­ry, power­ful­ly inspi­red by Augustine’s City of God.

Just as for Augustine and Leo, huma­ni­ty is cal­led to live in the ear­thly city, whe­re proud self-love rei­gns, but with the heart and the mind tur­ned to the hea­ven­ly city, whe­re love for God and nei­gh­bor rei­gns, so for Pizzaballa the even­ts of the pre­sent time must be lived in the light of the Jerusalem “that descends from Heaven,” descri­bed in the last two chap­ters of Revelation (in the pho­to, the hea­ven­ly Jerusalem in a 9th-century mosaic in the Roman basi­li­ca of Saint Praxedes).

And in fact, the let­ter from the patriarch of the Holy Land is con­struc­ted pre­ci­se­ly on this bipo­lar lay­out. Its fir­st part bears the title : “Reading the rea­li­ty : con­si­de­ring the pre­sent.” The second part is titled “Vocation : God’s dream named Jerusalem.” With a third part dedi­ca­ted to “living here and now the way of the hea­ven­ly Jerusalem.”

Pizzaballa’s descrip­tion of the cur­rent situa­tion in the Holy Land is very rea­li­stic : “’Coexistence,’ ‘dia­lo­gue,’ ‘justi­ce,’ ‘human rights,’ ‘two peo­ples and two sta­tes’: the­se terms, which for years have nou­ri­shed our discour­se, today seem worn-out and devoid of mea­ning.”

But if the gaze is exten­ded to the enti­re histo­ry, read “accor­ding to the Scriptures,” the vision chan­ges. If the histo­ry of huma­ni­ty begins in a gar­den, Eden, in a sta­te of pri­mor­dial inno­cen­ce but also of soli­tu­de, histo­ry ends in a city, the new Jerusalem, which “is not a return to an idyl­lic and iso­la­ted past, but the buil­ding of a com­mu­nal, com­plex, and recon­ci­led futu­re. The end of the sto­ry poin­ts toward a matu­re socie­ty – a ‘city,’ in fact.”

Written in sim­ple and com­pel­ling pro­se, Pizzaballa’s let­ter is worth rea­ding in its enti­re­ty. To sum­ma­ri­ze it would depri­ve it of its expres­si­ve power and the rich­ness of its con­tem­po­ra­ry refe­ren­ces. It can be found on the web­si­te of the Latin patriar­cha­te of Jerusalem in five lan­gua­ges : Italian, English, Spanish, French, and Arabic.

> “They retur­ned to Jerusalem with great joy”

But in the mean­ti­me, here is a sam­ple. Below are three excerp­ts from the letter’s second sec­tion, plus ano­ther excerpt from the third sec­tion.

*

From the letter of the patriarch of the Holy Land to the faithful. Four excerpts

by Pierbattista Pizzaballa

The fir­st city men­tio­ned in the Bible is built by Cain (Gen 4:17). After kil­ling his bro­ther, he builds a refu­ge : a pla­ce meant to set a limit to vio­len­ce, whe­re he can attempt to rebuild lost fra­ter­nal rela­tions. In Scripture, the city thus ari­ses as a human attempt to resto­re coe­xi­sten­ce whe­re rela­tion­ships have been shat­te­red.

The last city in the Bible, by con­tra­st, is the New Jerusalem that descends from hea­ven (Rev. 21 – 22). Between the­se two poles – the city-refuge built by huma­ni­ty out of fear, and the city-gift that descends from God out of love – the who­le sto­ry of sal­va­tion unfolds.

*

“Then I saw a new hea­ven and a new earth ; for the fir­st hea­ven and the fir­st earth had pas­sed away, and the sea was no more.” (Rev. 21:1)

The fir­st thing John sees is not the City, but a “New Heaven.” Jerusalem has a hea­ven. This may sound tri­te or obvious, but it is its most elo­quent distin­gui­shing fea­tu­re. Its anta­go­ni­st, Babylon, in Revelation, is also descri­bed in eve­ry detail. Yet, in Babylon, the sky is never seen. It is a city without hea­ven, and the­re­fo­re without God – enclo­sed within a pure­ly human and ear­thly hori­zon, and thus doo­med to ruin.

Jerusalem’s hea­ven, moreo­ver, is qui­te spe­cial : it is a “new” hea­ven. This is not the fir­st time John speaks of hea­ven. In chap­ter 4 of Revelation, the visions begin with a signi­fi­cant announ­ce­ment : the visio­na­ry glimp­ses an open door in hea­ven (Rev. 4:1). Heaven is new, then, fir­st of all becau­se it is open. It was ope­ned becau­se the Son of Man, who descen­ded from Heaven, retur­ned to Heaven after the Resurrection, taking huma­ni­ty with him (cf. Jn. 1:51). The new Heaven is a Heaven alrea­dy inha­bi­ted by huma­ni­ty.

In this pas­sa­ge, we find an impor­tant indi­ca­tion : to build the city, to wea­ve authen­tic rela­tion­ships among our­sel­ves and our com­mu­ni­ties, we must begin with an aware­ness of God’s pre­sen­ce, with the pri­ma­cy of God, with faith. God must not be exclu­ded. Jerusalem is not just a mat­ter of poli­ti­cal boun­da­ries or tech­ni­cal arran­ge­men­ts. Its main iden­ti­ty – the most impor­tant cha­rac­te­ri­stic of the city and of the enti­re Holy Land – is that of being the pla­ce of God’s reve­la­tion, the pla­ce whe­re fai­ths are at home.

Even today, this dimen­sion is made tan­gi­ble and visi­ble, espe­cial­ly in what is con­si­de­red the Holy Basin, whe­re almo­st all the main Holy Places are con­cen­tra­ted : the Old City and the Mount of Olives. The public cele­bra­tions of the dif­fe­rent reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties, mar­ked by dif­fe­rent and some­ti­mes over­lap­ping times, tran­sform the city, espe­cial­ly at cer­tain times of the year, resul­ting in an extraor­di­na­ry sym­pho­ny of dif­fe­rent prayers, songs, and litur­gies.

It is also com­mon, at the fir­st light of dawn or in the silen­ce of night, to meet men and women of all ages – Jews, Christians, and Muslims – wal­king throu­gh the city’s stree­ts, wrap­ped in their dif­fe­rent cloaks and hea­ding to their respec­ti­ve Holy Places, to join the reli­gious men and women who pray the­re day and night. The prayers of the dif­fe­rent reli­gious com­mu­ni­ties ulti­ma­te­ly set the rhy­thm of the enti­re city : they are its breath and light. This is the city’s most beau­ti­ful and enga­ging iden­ti­ty, its most pre­cious cha­rac­te­ri­stic, to be che­ri­shed and pre­ser­ved.

Ignoring this “ver­ti­cal” dimen­sion of our land, the reli­gious and spi­ri­tual sen­si­ti­vi­ty of the com­mu­ni­ties that belong to it – Jewish, Muslim, and Christian – is the dee­pe­st rea­son for the fai­lu­re of the coe­xi­sten­ce agree­men­ts that have taken pla­ce in recent deca­des. Future ones will also be doo­med to fai­lu­re if the spe­ci­fic, pro­phe­tic cha­rac­ter of Jerusalem is not taken into account. It must be, fir­st and fore­mo­st, a hou­se of prayer for all peo­ples (cf. Is 56:7).

We do not want to chal­len­ge, rather we do indeed con­firm, the neces­si­ty of the various exi­sting Status Quo accords, which are impor­tant for regu­la­ting rela­tions among the various com­mu­ni­ties in the city. However, I belie­ve the­re is also a need for the cou­ra­ge to embra­ce a new vision, to build new models of life and rela­tion­ships whe­re com­mon faith in God beco­mes an oppor­tu­ni­ty for encoun­ter rather than for exclu­sion. Faith opens us to Heaven and the world, whe­re all belie­vers feel urged to bring huma­ni­ty to God. No pro­ject of coe­xi­sten­ce in the Holy Land can igno­re the ver­ti­cal dimen­sion, the aware­ness that this land is, fir­st of all, the pla­ce of Revelation.

*

“It has a great, high wall with twel­ve gates, and at the gates twel­ve angels, and on the gates are inscri­bed the names of the twel­ve tri­bes of the Israelites : … And the wall of the City has twel­ve foun­da­tions, and on them are the twel­ve names of the twel­ve apo­stles of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:12 – 14)

What stands out in this descrip­tion is an appa­rent incon­si­sten­cy. The names of the twel­ve apo­stles are pla­ced as the foun­da­tion of the buil­ding, whi­le the names of the twel­ve tri­bes of Israel appear on the doors. Chronologically, one would expect the rever­se : Israel comes befo­re the apo­stles. Yet, in the vision of Revelation, the old and the new are nei­ther oppo­sed nor over­lap­ping but are instead recom­po­sed into a redee­med uni­ty. God does not era­se histo­ry but recrea­tes it by lay­ing new foun­da­tions in which nothing is lost, and eve­ry­thing finds its pro­per pla­ce.

Jerusalem thus beco­mes the ful­fill­ment for both the twel­ve tri­bes and the twel­ve apo­stles. Only within this City can each one find the mea­ning of his own histo­ry and mis­sion.

This is also a deci­si­ve point for us today. Violence often ari­ses from the ina­bi­li­ty to reread one’s histo­ry in a redee­ming way. This occurs when memo­ry beco­mes a her­me­ti­cal­ly sea­led nar­ra­ti­ve, con­struc­ted again­st the other and defen­ded as an exclu­si­ve pos­ses­sion. The ear­lier pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with owner­ship as a cri­te­rion for defi­ning rela­tion­ships is also reflec­ted in the rela­tion­ship with histo­ri­cal memo­ry. There is a ten­den­cy to want to own the nar­ra­ti­ve of even­ts, trea­ting it as ter­ri­to­ry to be defen­ded, whi­le con­stan­tly que­stio­ning the other’s histo­ri­cal nar­ra­ti­ve. In doing so, memo­ry no lon­ger helps impro­ve rela­tion­ships but instead beco­mes “toxic memo­ry” that pol­lu­tes them. Denying the histo­ri­cal memo­ry of the other is a sub­tle but power­ful form of exclu­sion.

What is nee­ded instead is a rethin­king of the very con­cep­ts of “histo­ry” and “memo­ry,” and con­se­quen­tly, also of the cate­go­ries of “guilt,” “justi­ce,” and “for­gi­ve­ness.” These are what pla­ce the reli­gious sphe­re in direct con­tact with the moral, social, and poli­ti­cal sphe­res. It is not a mat­ter of deny­ing the fac­ts of the past, but of veri­fy­ing their inter­pre­ta­tions so that the­se do not vio­len­tly deter­mi­ne today’s choi­ces. Only throu­gh this hone­st ree­xa­mi­na­tion can one redeem one’s histo­ri­cal under­stan­ding for the bene­fit of all huma­ni­ty. Schools, uni­ver­si­ties, cul­tu­ral cen­ters, move­men­ts, and the media bear the pri­ma­ry respon­si­bi­li­ty for this mis­sion to rethink and heal our col­lec­ti­ve memo­ry. They can help build a dif­fe­rent, posi­ti­ve, and inclu­si­ve histo­ri­cal nar­ra­ti­ve.

This puri­fi­ca­tion is not a diplo­ma­tic ope­ra­tion or a poli­ti­cal com­pro­mi­se ; it is a dee­ply spi­ri­tual act becau­se it tou­ches the roo­ts of iden­ti­ty and pain. It requi­res us to allow our­sel­ves to be redee­med by God so that we, in turn, can beco­me instru­men­ts and chan­nels of hea­ling for others. Only a redee­med memo­ry can gene­ra­te a dif­fe­rent futu­re. The mis­sion of the Church is to pro­mo­te a true “puri­fi­ca­tion of histo­ri­cal memo­ry.” St. John Paul II for­ce­ful­ly recal­led this during the Jubilee of 2000, when he spo­ke of the need to puri­fy memo­ry as a dee­ply spi­ri­tual act, capa­ble of tou­ching the roo­ts of iden­ti­ty and pain.

I am well aware that this is an unac­cep­ta­ble topic for many. For some, it may be “too Christian”; for others, it may seem uto­pian or even some­thing to be outrightly rejec­ted. However, this is the con­tri­bu­tion, the mis­sion, that the Lamb lea­ves to us. It is the wit­ness to which we are cal­led, the “pro­mi­se and pro­phe­cy” that must sustain our pil­gri­ma­ge in the Holy City, in our Church : to dare to envi­sion a futu­re not born of pos­ses­sion, fear, or vin­di­ca­tion, but of the redemp­tion of histo­ry. What kind of Church would we be if we did not have the cou­ra­ge to point to a world that is not yet here, but which God pro­mi­ses us, and which we alrea­dy glimp­se on the hori­zon ?

*

In the fir­st part of this Letter, we spo­ke of skep­ti­ci­sm. It is a wide­spread sen­ti­ment in our com­mu­ni­ties : skep­ti­ci­sm con­cer­ning insti­tu­tions, poli­tics, words, and some­ti­mes even con­cer­ning the futu­re. We must reco­gni­ze, howe­ver, that skep­ti­ci­sm, when it beco­mes a per­ma­nent atti­tu­de, ends up para­ly­zing us. We are cal­led to respond to this skep­ti­ci­sm with tru­st.

This is not a naï­ve opti­mi­sm or an atti­tu­de that igno­res the har­sh­ness of rea­li­ty. Christian tru­st is born of faith and is a choi­ce that runs coun­ter to the grain. It is the cer­tain­ty that God has not aban­do­ned histo­ry to chaos and remains clo­se to tho­se who suf­fer, tho­se who are per­se­cu­ted, tho­se who are rejec­ted. It is the con­vic­tion that a life spent, given for love, is never lost.

Let us think of Abraham and Sarah. Humanly, the­re was no lon­ger any pro­spect for them. Yet God visi­ted them and entru­sted them with a pro­mi­se. Trust always comes from a visit from God. Therefore, we must pray that the Lord may con­ti­nue to visit our com­mu­ni­ties, our fami­lies, our hearts. Only in this way can a hope that does not disap­point be born.

In con­cre­te terms, this tru­st dri­ves us to sup­port and make visi­ble all the ini­tia­ti­ves, peo­ple, and orga­ni­za­tions in our region that con­ti­nue to belie­ve in others and pro­mo­te the art of encoun­ter. But it is not enou­gh to sim­ply fol­low what others do : we are cal­led to beco­me pro­mo­ters of this sty­le of pre­sen­ce our­sel­ves, per­so­nal­ly embra­cing the cou­ra­ge of uni­ty.

Some might think the­se are insi­gni­fi­cant gestu­res, becau­se “nothing will ever chan­ge here.” However, even if that were the case, we can­not give up making a dif­fe­ren­ce. We want to be that small, some­ti­mes uncom­for­ta­ble, pre­sen­ce that refu­ses to be gui­ded by nar­ra­ti­ves of hate, but that, with mee­k­ness and deter­mi­na­tion, affirms its own : Christians do not hate. This is our testi­mo­ny, and it is alrea­dy a pro­phe­cy.

— —  — —

Sandro Magister is past “vati­ca­ni­sta” of the Italian wee­kly L’Espresso.
The late­st arti­cles in English of his blog Settimo Cielo are on this page.
But the full archi­ve of Settimo Cielo in English, from 2017 to today, is acces­si­ble.
As is the com­ple­te index of the blog www.chiesa, which pre­ce­ded it.

Retour en haut