Ch1 Whether Mr. Martin was destined for an eternity in hell

If Mr. Martin did not harm me, even in little ways, how could he have ever consented to handing an innocent man over to Roman torturers two thousand years ago? ~my private thoughts at age 16

My early religious training within Catholic schools in an ethnic suburb of Cleveland at the outbreak of World War II made it quite natural for me to pity, to blame, and to despise Jews. Had I been bombarded by Hitler’s speeches blaming and shaming Jews, I would undoubtedly have cheered him on. The greater part of my family and neighbors would have done the same. In point of fact, however, I never had contact with a single living Jew. But, then, in an unexpected moment, a real flesh and blood Jew, Mr. Martin, made his way into my life. This unsettled me. It also changed the course of my life. In retrospect, this was a graced encounter.

Mr. Martin agreed to employ me part‑time as a stock‑boy in his dry goods store on East 185th Street in Cleveland, Ohio. I had just turned sixteen, and I desperately needed a larger income than my Cleveland Plain Dealer route had been able to afford me; hence, I felt lucky to have landed this new job. On the other hand, I was anxious upon learning that Mr. Martin was “a Jew.” Would he exploit me? Could he treat a Christian fairly? Would he want me to work on Sundays or other religious holidays? Would he try to convert me to Judaism?

Over the months I was testing Mr. Martin and, unbeknownst to me, he was testing me as well. Let me explain. One evening, after closing, I was sweeping the long isles in the store my broom suddenly dislodged a crumpled twenty-dollar bill under the counter. My starting salary was fifty cents per hour, and twenty dollars represented a lot of money for a teenager in 1955.

Yet, without thinking twice, my Christian instincts guided me forward, and I turned the money over to Mr. Martin “lest someone come looking for it.” It did not even enter my mind that the money might become mine if no one claimed it or that I might receive a reward if someone did. Even more so, it never occurred to me that Mr. Martin would be deliberately testing me because he had already encountered many Christians who set out to cheat him or to steal from him because they thought of him “as nothing but a dirty Jew.”

As for my own tests, Mr. Martin passed with flying colors. He was genuinely sensitive to my religious convictions and school obligations when it came to scheduling my work hours. He treated me fairly, at times even generously, and this disarmed all my earlier reservations. In fact, I slowly came to admire Mr. Martin, and this admiration presented me with a new problem–a theological problem.

Given my Catholic upbringing, I knew that God had slated all Jews[i] for eternal damnation because of the terrible things they did to Jesus. I also knew that Jews could not go to confession to a priest to obtain pardon for such a grievous sin. On the other hand, it seemed unfair, somehow, that God should hold Mr. Martin guilty for such a crime. If Mr. Martin did not harm me, even in little ways, how could he have ever consented to handing an innocent man over to Roman torturers two thousand years ago? Thus began my soul-searching journey to try and find a way to rescue just one Jew from the everlasting fires of hell.

Whether Mr. Martin was guilty of having killed Jesus

I never took my theological problem to any of my teachers or pastors. Given my upbringing, I felt secretly ashamed[ii] that I had developed an emotional attachment to a Jew. I suspected that I might be ridiculed for what I was attempting to do. Thus, I was left to work out a private solution to my problem.

For starters, I already knew that for someone to commit a mortal sin, three things were necessary:

56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

57. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Thus, when it came to the death of Jesus, I had to believe that God could only condemn those Jews who knowingly and willingly recognized the enormity of the sin and then went ahead and approved of it anyway. It was hardly imaginable to me that Mr. Martin was that kind of Jew. With a certain boyish simplicity, consequently, I felt that I had succeeded in finding a theological loophole whereby Mr. Martin was safe from ever having to spend an eternity in hell.

A week later, another problem popped up. Mr. Martin certainly did not commit a mortal sin relative to the death of Jesus, but he still had that “original sin” which every human being inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve. Here is what I learned about original sin in my Baltimore Catechism:

47. Q. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?

48. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.

49. Q. Why is this sin called original?

50. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.[iii]

I had to admit that Mr. Martin was not a Catholic and that he did not have access to the Sacrament of Baptism that would have served to “wash away” his original sin. I knew original sin could be a serious obstacle since, without Baptism, even Catholic babies were prevented from ever going to Heaven. At best, they could expect to go to a place of natural happiness called “limbo.” Thus, I felt sorry for Mr. Martin. While safe from eternal hellfire, I was forced to see him relegated, for all eternity, to some minor place in the world to come.

How could my Church error when it came to Jewish guilt?

Never, never, never, in my wildest imagination, could I, in 1955, have perceived that the “blood guilt” of the Jews was a poison invented in the third century and systematically passed down as part of Catholic identity in all future generations. After all, I was assured that Jesus had sent the Holy Spirit to guide the teachers of my Church and to preserve them from all errors until the end of time. Here is what I was taught by my religious teachers using the Baltimore Catechism:

124. Q. What do you mean by the infallibility of the Church?

125. By the infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church cannot err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals.

126. Q. When does the Church teach infallibly?

127. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and the bishops, united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals.

It seemed unthinkable to me that my parents, my teachers, my pastors‑‑people whom I knew and loved‑‑could be the mindless purveyors of such a demonic distortion such as “blood guilt.” I mention these things, not by way of casting blame upon my Catholic forebears, but by way of indicating how blind even sympathetic and thoughtful persons can be when their hearts and minds are taken over by dark tendencies that claim to have God’s full endorsement.[ix]

Faced with this realization, I found little comfort in Fr. Eugene Fisher’s reminder to Jews during the 6th National Workshop on Christian‑Jewish relations that the popes and councils of the Church never actually defined “blood guilt” as part of the deposit of faith.[x] The shocking truth is that the popes and people alike so routinely accepted the notion of “blood guilt” that no concerted attack ever arose from any quarter within the Church such that a council or a pope would have had occasion to resolve a disputed question. Nor is it an issue of imagining that it was only ill‑informed and venial prelates who preached hatred for Jews. This idea might bring us some comfort.  However, as the Jewish scholar Emil Fackenheim reminded his audience, “it was also the saints and the bishops who preached contempt for Jews.”[xi]

How Pope John XXIII made a decisive initiative

In June of 1960, Pope John XXIII met with Jules Isaak to discuss Catholic-Jewish relations. Soon thereafter, when he announced his decision to convoke the Second Vatican Council, he simultaneously decided to submit to the Council a revised vision of Judaism. He specifically asked the well-respected German Old Testament scholar, Cardinal Augustin Bea, to prepare the first draft.

Debates both inside and outside the Council in 1963 served to expand the scope of the projected declaration to address, not only a revised vision of Judaism, but of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism as well. After vigorous debates and a multitude of revisions, the assembled bishops overwhelmingly voted on 28 October 1965, with 2221 votes in favor and 88 against, to promote the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. This Declaration that bears the Latin title of Nostra Aetate (being the first words of the document, “In this age of ours”) directly addresses and overturns each of the three propositions named above:

#1 Limited Guilt: Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminatingly at the time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion (Nostra Aetate 4).

#2 Limited Retribution: The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or cursed as if this follows from Holy Scripture (Nostra Aetate 4).

#3 Jews Remain as the Lord’s Chosen People: Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel. . . . Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made (Nostra Aetate 4).

How my Church rectified some false notions of Jews and Judaism

Following Vatican II, all the standard textbooks, liturgical manuals, and homilies had to be revised in order to reflect these altered ways of understanding Jews and Judaism. In other areas, however, few, if any, changes were being made. This is especially true in those areas where the superiority of Christianity was contrasted with the deficiencies of Judaism. This will become crystal clear in the next chapter.

For over fifteen hundred years, Catholics were forbidden to enter a synagogue and, with even greater force, were forbidden to learn about God’s plan of revelation from Jews. In 1986, John Paul II broke a long-standing barrier when he visited the principal synagogue in Rome. It was on this occasion that John Paul II spoke of the “common spiritual patrimony that exists between Jews and Christians” (a theme already present in Nostra Aetate) and then confirmed, for those Jews present, that “you are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.” So, the affection that I felt for Mr. Martin at the age of sixteen was not a shameful and misplaced affection (as I had wrongly imagined as a teenager). Rather, it was a totally proper affection for a man who knew the love of our Father in heaven far better and far longer than I had.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some probative questions that will allow you to go deeper.

Q1. As a Catholic teenager, Aaron admits that he was anxious upon learning that Mr. Martin was “a Jew.”

Would he exploit me? Could he treat a Christian fairly? Would he want me to work on Sundays or other religious holidays? Would he try to convert me to Judaism?

How do you explain this “spontaneous distrust” of Mr. Martin?  Which of his fears seem to be grounded in experience?  Which of his fears appear to be groundless?

Q2. Aaron admits that Mr. Martin was testing him.  He also admits that he was testing Mr. Martin:

As for my own tests, Mr. Martin passed with flying colors. He was genuinely sensitive to my religious convictions and school obligations when it came to scheduling my work hours. He treated me fairly, at times even generously, and this disarmed all my earlier reservations. In fact, I slowly came to admire Mr. Martin, and this admiration presented me with a new problem–a theological problem.

What does this “theological problem” reveal about the way that Aaron was trained by the Ursuline Sisters at Holy Cross Grade School?  If Aaron had attended a public school, would this have made a significant difference regarding the so-called crime of all Jews as having unlawfully killed Jesus?

Q3. Aaron tells us:

I never took my theological problem to any of my teachers or pastors. Given my upbringing, I felt secretly ashamed that I had developed an emotional attachment to a Jew. I suspected that I might be ridiculed for what I was attempting to do.

How do you explain that Aaron “felt secretly ashamed”?  How and why was Aaron trained to “feel secretly ashamed” of his “emotional attachment to a Jew”?  Is this the way that prejudice gets maintained in a community dedicated to hating Jews?  What experience have you had wherein a religious community isolated you from a sector of society that was deemed as “destined for hellfire.”  How did you deal with this?

Q4. How did Aaron when in the sixth grade so easily dismiss “the emotional blackmail” of his teacher?  Why could he not see that he himself was entrapped by “the emotional blackmail” preached against the Jews by Peter (Acts 2:23 and 2:36) and by Pope Pius IX and by most priests ordained in the 1950s?  What experience have you had with emotional blackmail?  Did it harm you or help you?  How so?

Q5.  Every textbook, every Catechism, every prayer book had to be rectified and changed in order to take into account the new perspective of Nostra Aetate.

For over fifteen hundred years, Catholics were forbidden to enter a synagogue and, with even greater force, were forbidden to learn about God’s plan of revelation from Jews. In 1986, John Paul II broke a long-standing barrier when he visited the principal synagogue in Rome. It was on this occasion that John Paul II spoke of the “common spiritual patrimony that exists between Jews and Christians” (a theme already present in Nostra Aetate) and then confirmed, for those Jews present, that “you are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”

What is the significance of John Paul II addressing the Jews in Rome as “our dearly beloved brothers”?  . . . as “our elder brothers”?

When I think of Mr. Martin, I recognize him as “my elder brother.”  He taught me some very important lessons.  He helped me to identify and to reverse the mindless hatred that Catholics around me had manufactured by way of implicating every Jew in the grave sin of killing Jesus.  And this was only the beginning:

Once I identified one serious error within Catholicism, it was only a matter of time before other serious errors popped up as well.  So, my spiritual journey continues. . . .  God was calling me to make Catholicism a safe haven for Jews.  God was calling me to make Catholicism a safe haven for the faith of Jesus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please post your comments at the end of this page.  You may want to tell other readers  (a) when and how you were personally helped by this exploration; (b) when and how were you challenged; (c) when and how you were distressed by what I wrote.

Thanking you in advance,

Dr. Aaron

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How to unravel your religious problems in three minutes

Many pastors have told me to “bring my problems to Jesus.”  Others have advised me to “talk it out with Mary.”  When I was sixteen, all my praying was directed toward the Virgin Mary.  Jesus seemed like the heavy weight.  After all, he would be my final judge.  That was a bit scarry.  Hence, I liked having conversations with Mary.

Over the years, however, I have discovered a practice that works for just about everyone—no matter where they happen to be in their prayer life.  This even works for those who, due to very legitimate reasons, are unable to prayer at all.  I call it my “three- minute relaxed breathing.”  Here is how it functions:

Breathing plays an important role in clarifying and in unraveling your religious problems. Slow, deep breaths calm your nervous system and prepare your body for deep relaxation which will enable you to discover solutions while you are sleeping.

Prepare yourself for going to sleep as you usually do. Tuck yourself into your bed with great gentleness.  Lie on you back and bring your attention to your natural breathing. Gently begin to breathe in through your nose and breath out through your mouth. Don’t rush your breaths. Follow the rhythm that your body finds most natural.  When you are confortable with this, introduce an audible sound as you exhale. Let the sound come naturally and don’t judge it.  Continue to do this for about three minutes.

While doing so, recall the most pressing religious problem that you are aware of.  Tell yourself (mentally) that you want to unravel this problems and then automatically to slowly wake you up as soon as you discover a possible solution.  Have a notebook or audio recorder ready if you decide to remember your solution. Be sure to include feeling tones since this serves your emotional intelligence.

This three-minute relaxed breathing usually does not work the first night.  Tell yourself, “that’s OK.”  Continue to do this for one week.

Once the power dreaming does kick in, you will decide when you wish to wind it down to a halt. To do this, you will tell yourself during the three-minute relaxed breathing that, should any solution show up, you will want to forget it and return to deep sleeping.

 

 

~~~~~Endnotes for experts~~~~~

[i] At the time when the Gospel of Matthew was compiled (65-75 CE), no one was thinking that “all Jews” were somehow guilty of having killed Jesus. After all, nearly everyone in the Jesus Movement was still recognized as Jewish. Furthermore, “the crowd” that “spread their cloaks on the road” (Matt 21:8) and shouted “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt 21:9) were not guilty of killing Jesus. Likewise, “the crowd” that was “astonished at his [Jesus’] teaching” (Matt 22:23) in Jerusalem were certainly not plotting to kill Jesus. Thus, Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that it was only “the chief priests and the elders” who “wanted to arrest him” (Matt 21:46) and who “were looking for false testimony against him” (Matt 26:59). The bloodguilt fell on them and their collaborators alone. This would have included Judas who betrayed him and later tried to return the “blood money” (Matt 27:6) to the chief priests and elders. It might also have included the crowd hired by the chief priests who called out “Crucify him” and “Let his blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matt 27:24-25) when Pilate was actively seeking a way to release Jesus because he and his wife were persuaded that he was “innocent” (Matt 27:19, 24). All in all, Matthew’s Gospel would incline its readers to estimate that only 200 to 300 Jews were actively implicated in destroying Jesus.

With the passage of time, the recruitment of Jews into the Jesus Movement dried up. Gentiles who became Christians were prone to exaggerate Jewish guilt because they met more and more Jews who openly rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Meanwhile, following the destruction of the Temple (66-70 CE) and the utter failure of the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE), Christian were prone to explain the enormous sufferings of the Jews as due to God’s intention to punish them for having killed Jesus. Thus, with time, the bloodguilt of the Jews was enlarged to include all Jews.

[ii] As the age of sixteen, I had been engaged in the study of religion for approximately 45 minutes on every school day for the past ten years of my life. When I think back upon these years, I remember that there was a lot of talk about Jews, both individually and collectively. I remember that references to Jews was almost entirely negative because, following the Gospel narratives, Jews were invariably presented as critical of Jesus and as actively working to harm him. I cannot remember any of my teachers reminding me that the Jewish crowds that heard Jesus overwhelmingly admired Jesus and that their public support prevented the chief priests and elders from taking decisive action to silence him (e.g., Matt 21:46).

None of my teachers ever told us stories of meeting and admiring any contemporary Jews who were working to create a better world. We heard about Catholic heroes such as Dr. Tom Dooley and Senator Joseph McCarthy. We heard about the stellar scientific achievements of Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, but none of my teachers bothered to tell us that these two scientists were Jewish and that their participation in the Manhattan Project was inspired by their fear that Nazi Germany might succeed in creating a nuclear bomb first (URL=<https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-jewish-story-behind-christopher-nolans-oppenheimer-explained/>). So, yes, due to the anti-Jewish bias of my teachers, I was cautious, self-protective, and ashamed to tell any of them that I was trying to save my hero, Mr. Martin, from hellfire.

[iii] I remember that my religion teacher had taught me that, if Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit that Eve had tasted, then he would have remained in the state of grace. Accordingly, all his children would have been born in the state of grace as well.  This conclusion was derived from the faulty genetics of that period. The male deposited the “seed” (semen in Latin) into the fertile feminine womb. In this agricultural model of genetics, the “seed” of the man contributes everything while the female merely nourishes the “seed.”  Thus, the offspring belong entirely to the man.  Women who divorced walked away without any children.  Then a totally surprising string of discoveries were made:

With the introduction of the microscope in the 17th century sperm were discovered in the semen. Studies involving impregnation of amphibian eggs revealed that single sperm could produce a foetus. Despite this information the mammalian egg remained undiscovered for another 200 years. Finally, Karl Ernst von Baer [in 1827] discovered the ovum by microscopic examination of the ovarian follicle contents of the dog. URL=https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-mammalian-ova-research/volume-26/issue-1/jmor.26.2/History-of-the-Egg-in-Embryology/10.1274/jmor.26.2.short

Once the offspring were perceived as the product of the sperm and ovum, one might think that ownership of children would immediately change.  Not so.  It took well over a hundred years for the cultural and legal norms to change such that, today, younger children are usually given to the mother during the divorce proceedings because mothers are usually more active and more responsible in nurturing preteen children.  Did the teaching on the transmission of original sin change?  To my best knowledge, no.

[iv] URL=<https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bloodguilt>

[v] This is the first instance that “some activity” is undertaken “in the name of Jesus.”  Clearly Jesus is not here.  Peter, however, judges that “the prophet” treated so badly would have authorized these baptisms “in his name.”  This is fitting.  The one injured by the Jews is now the one who authorizes baptisms of these Jews such that, due to their repentance, their sins against Jesus are forgiven.  Notice that there is not the slightest hint that “the merits of the crucifixion are somehow needed for this act of repentance and forgiveness.”

[vi] Scholars and pastors have resorted to providing imaginative ways of relieving Peter of his bad judgment. Here are some illustrations:

• It is probable some of those who had cried, Crucify him, crucify him, or who had been otherwise aiding and abetting [the chief priests and the elders] in the murder, were here present, and that Peter knew it. Be this as it may, it was justly looked upon as a national act, because done by the vote of the great council, and by the voice of the great crowd, clamoring for his blood. [Benson Commentary. URL=<https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/2-23.htm>]
• The fact that St. Peter thus describes the Jewish people as the actual murderers of Jesus is not a proof that in such language we have an instance of anti-Judaism [that is] quite inconsistent with the historical truth. . . . [Expositor’s Greek Testament. URL=<https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/2-23.htm>]
• By the hand of lawless men. “By the hand of” is the common Hebrew phrase בְיַר, by means of, through the agency of. The Jewish nation (ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι) had crucified the Lord of glory by the hand of the heathen Romans. Acts 2:23 [Pulpit Commentary. URL=<https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/2-23.htm>]

Notice that the [Protestant] Pulpit Commentary says explicitly that the “Jewish nation (ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι) had crucified the Lord.” In so doing, the Commentary overlooks the fact that the Synoptic Gospels limit their blood guilt to “the high priests and elders” who forced Pilate to crucify him. The Commentary also overlooks the fact that crucifixion is a Roman penalty. Had the chief priest found him guilty of blasphemy, the penalty would have been stoning.

[vii] Even the bloodguilt of Matthew only goes forward for one generation: “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt 27:25).  Nothing is said about “grandchildren.”

[viii] If I live long enough, I would like to spell this out in full detail on my website=<https://www.churchonfire.net> and to provide open space where you and other readers could narrate their own stories.

[ix] The Protestant Reformation changed the practice of the Church substantially; however, none of the reformers challenged Jewish “blood guilt.” Martin Luther, in his treatise “On the Jews,” engages in the same vehement hate speech that had been perfected by Catholics for over a thousand years. This is how “deep prejudices” work.  At first, one learns how to hate from some parent or respected person.  When hateful thoughts emerge spontaneously, then one can be sure that the learning phase has been successful.  These spontaneous hateful thoughts lead to hateful speech.  Finally, hateful speech erupts in hateful action.

This chain of causes and effects has nothing to do with the devil or with original sin.  It is simply the natural way that we learn to protect ourselves from the dirty contagion carried by Jews. This same chain saves us from child molesters, from credit card frauds, from Covid contamination, from religious fanatics, etc.  Go to my footnote that cites Albert Einstein to better discover how prejudices work.

[x] Fr. Eugene Fisher was appointed to his present post as Executive Secretary of the Secretariat for Catholic‑Jewish Relations of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in May of 1977. He succeeded Father Edward H. Flannery, who had held the post since its establishment in 1968 as part of the NCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. In 1981 Fisher was named Consulter to the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews. He is one of nine Consulters to the Vatican Commission worldwide. He is also a member of the International Catholic‑Jewish Liaison Committee representing the Holy See. His furtive attempt to calm the fear of Jews by explaining to them that no pope or council ever dogmatically defined “blood guild” was aptly responded to by the Jewish scholar Emil Fackenheim.

[xi] Here is a case of a Saint that devoted himself to converting Jews by making their lives miserable:

St. Vincent Ferrer, Dominican, miracle-worker, an excellent preacher, [was] totally dedicated to the conversion of the Jews. Throughout Castile and Aragon, he passed from synagogue to synagogue, the Torah in one hand, the crucifix in the other and a band of devout [flagellants] at his heals. . . . He is credited with 35,000 baptisms of Jews between 1411 and 1412. When he failed to persuade he was severe and is believed to have inspired the first compulsory Spanish ghettoes and the oppressive legislation of 1414 that narrowly circumscribed Jewish social activities (E.H Flannery: 1985, p. 134).

He cast himself as a simple pilgrim, walking barefoot or astride a humble ass. As he approached town, a long procession of flagellants drew up, their groans ascending: ‘Have pity!, Have pity!’ Marching feet and the crack of whips on blood-soaked backs set arhythmic beat. The escort did penance, while Ferrer rode or walked at the head of this fearsome procession to symbolize his imitation of Christ. He would have a huge wooden cross just behind him; cross and preacher were the first to enter town (C.M. Losata: 2015, 205).

Preaching generally took place in the open air, as few churches could hold all who came to hear. The preacher stood on a purpose-built stage, with the whole town, from dignitaries down to peasants watching – not omitting the Moors [Muslims] and Jews coerced [to be present] for their instruction. Spain often compelled Jews to witness Christian preaching. But Ferrer, more than once, threatened the authorities, who were happy to comply, obliging Jews to attend and laying heavy fines or prison if they failed to come (CM.. Losata: 2015, 206).

[xii] For a very readable overview of how Jews have been despised as “Christ killers,” read E.H. Flannery, Anguish of the Jews. See also n. 13.

[xiii] After vigorous debates and a multitude of revisions, the assembled bishops of Vatican II overwhelmingly voted on 28 October 1965, with 2221 votes in favor and 88 against, to implement the changes defined in Nostra Aetate  [English title = Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.