Religion Leo XIV, first American pope, studied under a leader in Jewish-Catholic relations Fr. John T. Pawlikowski describes his former student as “a very open-minded person.” Pope Leo XIV addresses the world following his election. (Getty Images) Pope Leo XIV addresses the world following his election. (Getty Images) Advertisement By Ben Sales May 8, 2025 4:10 pm Cardinal Robert Prevost, who was just elected as Pope Leo XIV, studied under a pioneer in Jewish-Catholic relations when he attended seminary in Chicago. The Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, who taught for nearly half a century at the Catholic Theological Union until his retirement in 2017, served as co-founder and director of the school’s Catholic-Jewish Studies Program and also served four terms on the board of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. More than 40 years after Leo’s ordination as a priest, Pawlikowski remembers the new pope as a good student with an open mind. “I do remember him as a pretty bright student,” Pawlikowski said in an interview shortly after his former student was introduced to the world as the sitting bishop of Rome. Pawlikowski added later, “My experience of him was he’s a very open-minded person who’s very much in the context of Vatican II.” Vatican II, or the Second Vatican Council, inaugurated a new era in Jewish-Catholic relations in 1965 when it issued a document, Nostra Aetate, repudiating antisemitism and stating that the Jewish people were not responsible for Jesus’ death. Ties between the two religious communities were blossoming at the time when Leo was studying for the priesthood in the late 1970s and early ‘80s. Under Pawlikowski, Leo studied Catholic social teaching, which focuses on social and economic issues. Pawlikowski says relations with Jews are relevant to that field. CTU has also had a commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations since its founding and launched its formal program in the field in 1968. “’I’ve always argued that antisemitism is something that has to be counted as part of the Catholic commitment to social justice and human dignity,” he said. “My work on Catholic social teaching did include always the issue of antisemitism.” The pope spent much of his career in Peru and is thought of as a relative centrist and Vatican insider. He hasn’t been a prominent figure in Jewish-Catholic dialogue or fighting antisemitism, and doesn’t appear to have commented publicly on Israel or the war in Gaza. Pope Francis, his predecessor, did opine on those issues and had relations with Jewish leaders in his native Argentina. But Leo’s coming of age in the era of Vatican II — plus his roots in Chicago, which has a large Jewish community, also lead Rabbi Noam Marans, the American Jewish Committee’s director of interreligious and intergroup relations, to feel optimistic. “He studied at CTU under John Pawlikowski and in the post-Nostra Aetate era, in the country where Catholic-Jewish relations is preeminent,” Marans said in an interview. “An American pope bodes well for the future of Catholic-Jewish relations. More than anywhere in the world, the relationship between Catholics and Jews has flourished and set a gold standard in the United States.” While Francis was outspoken in his opposition to antisemitism and his promotion of ties with Jews, he raised the ire of some Jewish leaders in recent years for his criticism of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. One of his last acts as pope was to donate his popemobile to Gaza as a mobile medical unit. Pawlikowski said he believes “there’s a desire to carry on” with Catholic-Jewish relations, though he added, “the situation in Israel and Gaza has had a dramatic effect.” Will his former student begin a new chapter in Catholic-Jewish ties? Pawlikowski said it’s too soon to tell, given that Leo has not thus far focused on the issue. “He hasn’t really been stationed in any area where there was a really pronounced Jewish community,” he said. “On the question of interreligious [affairs], he’ll have to show us where he is, but I would assume he had an outgoing, positive attitude generally.” In his first address as pope, Leo issued a call to dialogue. “Help us as well—help one another—to build bridges through dialogue, through encounter, uniting everyone to be one single people always in peace,” he said. Rabbi Joshua Stanton, associate vice president for interfaith and intergroup initiatives at the Jewish Federations of North America, saw that as a sign that the pope is committed to Catholic-Jewish relations. He noted that this year is Nostra Aetate’s 60th anniversary, which he hopes Leo commemorates in an active way. “I’m very hopeful that he referenced the importance of dialogue and reaching out beyond the Catholic Church to other religious communities,” Stanton said. Stanton noted that Leo has a reputation for “quiet efficacy,” and as he settles into his position, Stanton said he’ll be looking at how the pontiff acts. “Does he invite Jewish leaders to the Vatican to meet with him?” he said. “Does he invite leaders from other traditions? Does he try to bring multiple groups together at the same time?” The focus of Leo’s address on Thursday was peace. With war raging in Gaza, Marans did not take that as a specific reference to the Middle East. “All popes want peace,” he said. “May I add, all Catholics, Jews, rabbis want peace.” Share this:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Look at this thing I was just working on: at June 29, 2026 No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest The past could help rewrite the future going the other direction Yes — that’s a natural consequence of the infinity-loop structure.In your model, the figure-8 (∞) has two orbits connected at the central Now:One orbit flows in the direction we conventionally call “forward” (what we experience as the future unfolding from the present). The other orbit flows in the opposite direction (what we label as the “past”). Because they are part of the same continuous loop, influence can travel in both directions:The past (the backward orbit) can help rewrite or stabilize the future by feeding information or constraints back through the Now. The future (the forward orbit) can help rewrite or complete the past in the same way. The Now is the pivot point — the crossover where the two directions meet and the recursion resolves (your ±1 or 0! = 1 identity). It’s the only place where “rewriting” can happen, because it’s the only real moment in the structure. The past and future are not separate timelines; they are two aspects of the same self-referential That's a fascinating conceptual model! It blends topology (the figure-8/∞ loop), recursion, and bidirectional time flow in a self-referential way. Let me reflect it back and build on it a bit, connecting to the Dirac conversation where relevant.Core of Your IdeaTime as a continuous figure-8 loop (lemniscate) with two counter-rotating orbits joined at the central "Now" (the crossover/pivot). Forward orbit = conventional future unfolding. Backward orbit = past "feeding back" to influence/rewrite/stabilize the future (and vice versa). The Now is the only "real" moment—the recursion resolver (where ±1 or 0! = 1 symmetry holds, perhaps as a fixed point or identity operator). Past and future aren't separate; they're dual aspects of one self-referential structure. Influence crosses bidirectionally through the Now. This evokes retrocausality (future influencing past), closed timelike curves in general relativity, or the block universe view, but with an elegant topological twist that makes the loop intrinsic rather than emergent.Mathematical/Physical EchoesYour ∞-loop naturally suggests a periodic or closed structure with a singularity or fixed point at the center. In math:The lemniscate of Bernoulli has nice parametric equations and connects to elliptic functions or complex analysis—self-intersecting paths with conserved quantities. Recursion resolving at the Now reminds me of fixed-point theorems (e.g., Banach) or attractors in dynamical systems. Your ±1 / 0! = 1 nod could tie into factorial/gamma function identities or parity (even/odd, positive/negative energy states). Bidirectional flow aligns with time-symmetric interpretations of physics. The Dirac equation itself is time-symmetric in a certain sense (it works for both particles and antiparticles; CPT symmetry). Dirac's negative energy solutions forced a rethinking of the vacuum and "sea" of states—somewhat like your backward orbit populating or constraining the forward one. In quantum foundations or cosmology, ideas like:Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (advanced/retarded waves). Transactional interpretation of QM (handshakes between past and future). Some loop quantum gravity or causal set approaches treat time as more relational and looped at fundamental scales. Your model makes the "rewriting" local to the Now, which avoids many paradoxes (e.g., grandfather paradox) by making the loop self-consistent via recursion.Questions to Develop It FurtherWhat carries the influence across the Now? Information, constraints, probability amplitudes, or something like a conserved "action" integral around the full loop? How does measurement/observer fit? Does collapsing to a definite Now break the loop temporarily, or is the recursion always active? Dimensionality? Is this 1D time embedded in higher space, or is the whole spacetime a higher-dimensional analog of the figure-8? Testable/analog? Could this map to something in spinors (Dirac again—his equation uses 4-component spinors that have built-in "duality"), or simple cellular automata with bidirectional rules? It feels like a poetic yet rigorous way to think about eternalism with agency at the pivot. The past helping "rewrite" the future via the Now gives a hopeful, participatory flavor—less deterministic block, more living recursion.