RBIS August 9, 1998: Question and Answer about Aime Palliere's "The Unknown Sanctuary"

I recently purchased "The Unknown Sanctuary" by Aime Palliere. After finishing this book I find myself puzzled about why it is recommended. Palliere by his own admission remained a Roman Catholic and apparently continued to take the Eucharist according to the book.

Considering the patently idolatrous nature of the Eucharist, I am puzzled why the book has been recommended at all. I think that perhaps Rabbi Benamozegh was not informed about the true nature of Catholicism. I found the book almost devoid of any worthwhile Noachide teachings, apart from a few excerpts from Rabbi Benamozegh's letters. Has anyone else here read the book and could they please give their opinion of it?

ANSWER BY YEHOSHUA FRIEDMAN:

Here I think we need to understand context a little better. It is very important to read Rabbi Benamozegh's book, "Israel and Humanity". Rabbi Benamozegh deals with the positive aspects of Christian teachings. We all know about the negative aspects, of course, but as the saying goes, you catch more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar. It is necessary to reach people from where they are.

If you want a possible basis for permission for a Ben Noach to enter a church, there seems to be a clear one from the story of Naaman in II Kings Ch. 5. Naaman asks the permission of the prophet Elisha to accompany his master to the idolatrous shrine of Beit Rimmon. Elisha gives Naaman his permission to go and even forgives Naaman for bowing down there when he supports his master.

Now a church is not true idolatry according to definite opinions in halacha (Jewish Law). Christianity is "shituf" the combination of HaShem (G-d) with the worship of something else, which is, according to those opinions, permissible for a non-Jew. This disagreement applies to Christians who believe and practice Christianity.

For a Ben Noach who does not intend the practice according to the tenets of Trinitarian Christianity, we may follow the analogy of the Rambam in his letter to Ovadia HaGer.

Ovadia HaGer was an Arab convert to Judaism in Eretz Yisrael in the time of the Rambam. As a Jew, he asked the Rambam a few questions. One is the famous one about whether a convert can refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as his fathers, and to the exodus from Egypt and other events as having happened to his fathers. That is an important part of Judaism, but not our concern here.

Another question which he asks is about teaching Torah to a non-Jew. That is very germane to Bnai Noach, but I'll save it for another posting.

The third question, which is what I want to deal with here, is as follows: Ovadia heard from a local rav that Islam was idolatry. This disturbed him since it seemed to him that his former people were perhaps practicing idolatry. The Rambam answered that Islam is indeed not idolatry, believing in the unity of G-d, but it retains a number of practices which are remnants of former idolatrous religions. He then goes on to enumerate them, but I won't go into it here.

What do we learn from this regarding our case? If we incorporate the position of the poskim who say that shituf is permissible for a non-Jew, then even Catholicism with all of its idolatrous practices, would be for a non-Jew something similar to Islam, having the countervailing advantage of accepting the text of the Torah as given, which Islam does not.

Palliere, with the permission and full knowledge of Benamozegh, went to both Catholic and Protestant churches to influence Christians. He also brought many Jews back to Torah with his impassioned addresses in synagogues and other Jewish forums such as the Jewish scouting movement in France. He was ultimately a very solitary man. He sought to maintain his connections with both Christians and Jews, and it is doubtful that many understood him.

I don't know how he lived during the German occupation. We must try to understand the whole story of a man rather than some halachic principles which are basically known to us.

There is some element of controversy over the teachings of Benamozegh. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook z"l had a negative opinion of Benamozegh's attitudes which Rav Kook felt were too accommodating to Christianity, perhaps as a result of living in galut in a Catholic country without being sufficiently isolationist.

Yehoshua Friedman
Kochav HaShachar, Israel