text:
Nostra aetate

Nostra aetate (from Latin: "In our time"), or the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, is an official declaration of the Vatican II, an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. It was promulgated on 28 October 1965 by Pope Paul VI. Its name comes from its incipit, the first few words of its opening sentence, as is tradition. It passed the Council by a vote of 2,221 to 88 of the assembled bishops.

It is the shortest of the 16 final documents of the Council and "the first in Catholic history to focus on the relationship that Catholics have with Jews." Similarly, Nostra aetate is considered a monumental declaration in describing the Church's relationship with Muslims. It "reveres the work of God in all the major faith traditions." It begins by stating its purpose of reflecting on what humankind has in common in these times when people are being drawn closer together. The preparation of the document was largely under the direction of Cardinal Augustin Bea as President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, along with his periti, such as John M. Oesterreicher, Gregory Baum and Bruno Hussar.

Following an approach by Jules Isaac, a French-born Jew who was associated with the Seelisberg Conference of the International Council of Christians and Jews, in which he claimed that Christian antisemitism had prepared the way for the Holocaust, a sympathetic Pope John XXIII endorsed the creation of a document which would address a new, less adversarial approach to the relationship between the Catholic Church and Rabbinic Judaism. Within the Church, conservative Cardinals were suspicious and Middle Eastern Catholics strongly opposed the creation of such a document. With the Arab–Israeli conflict in full swing, the governments of Arab world such as Egypt (in particular), Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq vocally lobbied against its development (the document was subjected to several leaks during its development due to the involvement of the intelligence agencies of several nations). Jewish organisations such as the American Jewish Committee, B'nai B'rith, and the World Jewish Congress also lobbied for their side with the assistance of liberal clergymen.  After going through numerous drafts, compromises were made and a statement was added on Islam to mollify the security concerns of the Arab Christians. Finally, statements on Eastern religions, Buddhism and Hinduism were also added.

History of the document
Before his death in 1963, Pope John XXIII wrote a statement which he intended to be read aloud in all Roman Catholic Churches of the world on a fixed date:

"“We are conscious today that many many centuries of blindness have cloaked our eyes so that we can no longer either see the beauty of Thy Chosen People nor recognize in their faces the features of our privileged brethren. We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood which we drew or shed the tears we caused by forgetting Thy Love. Forgive us for the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did. . . .” undefined"

Originally, Nostra aetate was only supposed to focus on the relationship between the Catholic church and Judaism. There were five different drafts of the document before a final version was accepted. Some bishops and cardinals objected, including Middle Eastern bishops who were unsympathetic to the new state of Israel. Cardinal Bea decided to create a less contentious document which would stress ecumenism between the Catholic Church and all non-Christian faiths. While coverage of Hinduism and Buddhism is brief, two of the document's five sections are devoted to Islam and Judaism.

Before the Council: Decretum de Iudaeis, 1960–1962

The specific origins of Nostra aetate can be traced directly to a meeting between Pope John XXIII and Jewish-French historian Jules Isaac on 13 June 1960. Isaac wanted a document at the Second Vatican Council, in light of the Holocaust, to specifically address the relationship between the Catholic Church and Judaism. In his meeting with Roncalli, Isaac used diplomatic language, pointing to the Fourth Chapter of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in which Jews are mentioned in combination with the Romans as "advisors and perpetrators of the passion" and that the Catechism lays ultimate responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ, not just upon the Jews, but upon humanity's original sin and the "vices and crimes which people have committed from the beginning of the world to the present day and will go on committing until the end of time." Thus, Isaac, argued, even within the context of Catholic doctrine, it would be possible for the Holy See to make a statement distancing the Church from preaching the concept of Jewish deicide (to which Isaac attributed a significant bulk of what he called "Christian anti-semitism"). Roncalli, more so than his predecessors, was favourably disposed to such a suggestion; previously as the Archbishop Apostolic Delegate to Turkey, he had had a long relationship with Jewish communities and since being raised to the Papacy in 1958, had ushered in a period of "openness to the world" (what was called giovanissimo). Roncalli had already removed from the Good Friday prayer for the Jews the term "perfidious" (meaning faithless) in 1959.

Isaac, a French-born Jew, had a long history of activism in regards to Jewish ethno-religious concerns, tracing back to the Dreyfus affair when he was a teenager. Leading up to the Second World War, he had been part of the left-wing group CVIA and after the war he had founded, along with Jacob Kaplan, Edmond Fleg and other French-born Jews, the Amitié Judéo-chrétienne de France on 26 February 1948. This was following on from the Seelisberg Conference of the International Council of Christians and Jews (originally an American-British initiative) a year earlier at which Isaac had been a key speaker. Through several works, Jesus and Israel (1946), the Genesis of Anti-Semitism (1948) and The Teaching of Contempt (1962)—the latter published at the start of Vatican II—Isaac had laid out his central thesis that, the "most dangerous form of anti-semitism is Christian anti-semitism", which he treats not as a peripheral anomaly, but inherent in its origins, from the Passion as described by the Four Evangelists in the Gospels, through the Church Fathers to the present day. Isaac's solution to this was that Christianity must "amend" its beliefs, expunge from its doctrines any "teachings of contempt" which present Rabbinic Judaism as rejected or inferior and adopt a new relationship with Jews. The Vicomte Léon de Poncins, a French aristocrat and contemporary Catholic critic of Isaac, held the view that Issac's presentation was bias, due to its absence of any recognition of anti-Christian teachings within Rabbinic Judaism and addressing historic controversies (i.e., Jesus in the Talmud, the Marranos and accusations of Jewish involvement in anti-Christian revolutionary movements) and that Isaac's theories merely aimed to heap calumny upon the Catholic Church, accusing it of injustice.

John XXIII had created the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity (SECU), a few days before his meeting with Isaac on 5 June 1960. This organisation was to be headed up by Cardinal Augustin Bea, a veteran German Jesuit cleric, with Bishop Johannes Willebrands, a Dutch clergyman, appointed as his Secretary. The body was developed to address the relationship between the Catholic Church and other separate groups who identified as Christians. Many of the periti appointed to the Secretariat had been part of the ecumenical movement and thus tended to be supportive of a broad and liberal interpretation of its objectives. With the first plenary meeting of the SECU in November 1960, a second official mandate was put under their aegis: a view on Catholic–Jewish relations. Bea sought outside opinion from Jewish figureheads for Dei Judaeis and was advised to approach Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress. The two men met in Autumn 1960: Goldmann explained to Bea that while the WJC were open to the idea, many proponents of Orthodox Judaism would be resistant to any collaboration. Some of the Orthodox Rabbis, while opposed to Christianity for theological reasons anyway, also feared that they too may be pressured into changing exclusivistic doctrines essential to their own religion, such as their claim to being the "chosen people" and thus preferred not to get involved. Similarly, within the Catholic Church itself, conservative elements in the Curia and the Doctrinal Commission (with figures such as Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Fr. Sebastian Tromp) were opposed to the works of the SECU, due to what they viewed as the threat to Catholic doctrine by religious indifferentism.

If predominantly Latin Catholic conservatives within the Roman Curia were opposed to any document on the Jews for theological reasons, then the Arab world (whether Muslim or Christian) was concerned with it for immanently political reasons, relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Egypt, then under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, particularly concerned itself with all Vatican documents on the Jews which were published since the time of Isaac's visit to Roncalli back in 1960. The Voice of the Arabs, based in Cairo, ascribed this move to a "Zionist plot to capitalize on the Vatican Council in order to further the oppression of the Palestinian refugees." The Lebanese Embassy and the Egyptian Embassy in Rome made their complaints known to the Vatican. In spite of this, Roncalli allowed the SECU under Bea to continue its work on a document on Jewish-Catholic relations. Bea openly met with Ralph Friedman and Zacariah Shuster of the American Jewish Committee at Rome in 1961, inviting them to submit a memorandum on anti-Jewish elements in Catholic textbooks and liturgy. The AJC responded to the SECU with two documents: "The Image of the Jew in Catholic Teaching" by Judith Banki and then "Anti-Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy", outlining the changes to Church teachings and practices that they wanted the planned Council to implement. As part of this, Bea also agreed to meet with Abraham Joshua Heschel of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School in November 1961 to discuss new Church approaches to the Jews.

With the Curial conservatives—largely from Italy and Spain—and the Arab Christians now on the backfoot, a different approach was presented; the security of Christians in the Middle East. It was put to Roncalli that nothing must be done that would compromise the position of the Catholic Church in the Middle East and that the Church has a pastoral responsibility to ensure above all that Christians in the Middle East could practice their faith unmolested (any kind of outreach to Jews likely being seen as a precursor to Holy See recognition of the State of Israel). Instead of a document just dealing with Judaism, a general statement on non-Christian religions should be prepared and in any case any Council should be delayed until at least 1965, they argued. Instead of agreeing to their demands, Roncalli doubled down on his project. He stated that a Council would be called in the following year and addressing Jewish-Catholic relations would be put to the Central Preparatory Commission. The Commentary Magazine, an American Jewish publication, also claimed in an article published in 1965, that Roncalli intended to set up a permanent Secretariat for Jewish Relations after the council, the SECU itself would be permanent and that non-Christian advisers would be permitted to attend the council and be able to submit documents to it, despite not being members of the Catholic Church.

Working underneath Bea were four clerics; John M. Oesterreicher, Gregory Baum, Leo Rudloff and Georges Tavard. The German, Karl Thieme, who was not involved in the drafting, was a major influence on the intellectual reorientation of Oesterreicher due to the debates the two had. After meeting several times at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, the group drafted for Bea a study document "Questions Concerning the Jews" (Questiones de Iudaeis), which was drafted properly as the "Decree on the Jews" (Decretum de Iudaeis), with Oesterreicher's pen being most prominent. The document was completed in November 1961. External pressure on the Catholic Church to conform to the zeitgeist and make an explicit statement on Judaism was also heightened by a meeting in New Delhi in December 1961, where the World Council of Churches (a major ecumenical organisation controlled by Protestants) issued an explicit proclamation in which they stated "the historic events which led to the Crucifixion should not be so presented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibilities which belong to our corporate humanity." The polemics intensified, as Egyptian media outlets such as Al Gomhuria claimed that Bea's ancestral name was "Behar" and that he was of Jewish ancestry. The actually confirmed Jewish ancestry of converts who were involved in writing the document under Cardinal Bea; Oesterreicher and Baum; was also highlighted as proof of a supposed "Zionist plot".

The initial drafting of Decretum de Iudaeis by the SECU was completed in November 1961. The actual text of the document was four paragraphs long. Much of the first paragraph was uncontroversial to all factions, as it highlighted the continuity of the Catholic Church with the Patriarchs and Prophets of Israel before the coming of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Church as the spiritual continuation of ancient Israel's covenant with the god of Abraham (the only criticism conservative elements had of this was the relevance of Old Covenant Judaism to a document on relations with modern Talmud-centered Rabbinic Judaism). Much of the controversy over the actual text of Decretum de Iudaeis, was based on innovationary interpretations of Romans 11, which was used as justification for the line "it would be an injustice to call this people accursed, since they are greatly beloved for the sake of the Fathers and the promises made to them." Contrary to Matthew 27, which mentioned a blood curse, traditionally highlighted by many Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. The text, also referencing Romans 11, broached eschatological themes in regards to the eventual union of Jews with the Church. This new interpretation of Romans 11 had been developed by Karl Thieme (a longtime correspondent of John M. Oesterreicher, one of the main SECU periti and drafters under Bea), a pioneer in Catholic-Jewish interfaith dialogue since the late 1930s and a contributor to Gertrud Luckner's Freiburger Rundbrief. According to John Connelly, author of From Enemy to Brother (2012), for the draft Oesterreicher directly borrowed from Thieme's vision for Romans 11, which he had formulated for an ecumenical congress in Evanston in 1954 (Thieme had in turn being influenced by Karl Barth and Barth had allegedly drawn it from Moses Maimonides). In addition to this, a final, uncited paragraph in this version of the draft claimed that "Whoever despises or persecutes this people does injury to the Catholic Church."

In June 1962, the World Jewish Congress, acting on its own initiative, appointed Dr. Chaim Wardi, an Israeli counsellor in the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs, as an "unofficial Jewish observer" at the council. The Israeli Foreign Ministry under Golda Meir publicly endorsed this. The issue became known as the "Wardi affair" and caused a political crisis for the Vatican under Roncalli, who had maintained that the document had no political implications and was about encouraging amicable religious relations. Within five days of Wardi's "appointment", Cardinal Amleto Giovanni Cicognani as Secretary of the Central Preparatory Commission removed the Decretum de Iudaeis schema from the agenda (as Cardinal Secretary of State, he was particularly sensitive to diplomatic issues), never to be presented in this form to the council as a whole. While the Jewish schema was off the agenda for the First Session of Vatican II, the issue was not put to rest, as liberals, starting with the actions of Cardinal Achille Liénart made a strong early showing to direct the general course of the council. The possibility of a Jewish document still loomed large for its opponents. In October 1962, with the opening of the council, a document entitled Il Complotto contro la Chiesa ("The Plot Against the Church") under the pseudonym of Maurice Pinay was anonymously distributed to all attending. Allegedly funded by Egypt and elements in northern Italy, the specific authorship of the document has remained a mystery. The document was originally authored in Spanish and is potentially a collaborative work of Mexican origin; some Italian sources have attributed the spread of the document at the Council in part to Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, a Mexican priest and former Jesuit. It warned vigilance to the Council members, with the 800-page polemic claiming that since the times of Christ, for 1900 years, Judaism had worked to overthrow Christianity and the Catholic Church, claiming involvement of the "Synagogue of Satan" in every major heresy, as well as encouraging "enemies" such as Freemasonry and Communism.

Second Session of the Council, 1962–1963
Since his initial meetings with Bea in 1962, with many other meetings following, including significantly a meeting at the AJC's headquarters in New York on 31 March 1963; Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel became the primary figure articulating the religious Jewish viewpoint to the Vatican on behalf of the American Jewish Committee during the Second Vatican Council. He had been brought into contact with Bea, through his student, the AJC's Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum. Associated with Conservative Judaism, Heschel also had a keen interest in Jewish mysticism. Unafraid to get involved in politics, Heschel had inserted himself into the American civil rights movement and protested against the Vietnam War. His memorandum on behalf of the American Jewish Committee, entitled "On Improving Catholic–Jewish Relations", had a significant influence on proceedings of Bea's Secretariat. The meeting in New York had also been attended by Bea's Secretary Msgr. Johannes Willebrands and Fr. Felix Morlion, president of Rome's Pro Deo University. The evening following the AJC meeting, a lavish dinner was put on in honour of Bea at New York's Plaza Hotel. It included over 400 Jewish, Protestant and Catholic leaders. As well as Herschel and Bea, other major figures present included U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations and Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, President of the UN General Assembly, American Cardinals Richard Cushing and Francis Spellman and also Nelson Rockefeller as Governor of New York, amongst many others. According to Lazare Landau, writing in the Tribune Juive, similar, but more discreet meetings took place in France between Fr. Yves Congar and the Jewish community at the Centre communautaire de le Paix in Strasbourg.

The main aims of Heschel and the Jewish side had been to encourage the alteration of the Catholic presentation of Jewish responsibility in regards to the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ (what is sometimes known as Jewish deicide). And in addition to this, the Jewish side wanted a stop to any efforts; whether peaceful or not; at converting Jews to Christianity. While Cardinal Bea was highly sympathetic, attempting to present this within a framework of Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy, which it would require to pass through the council was proving difficult to achieve, for a number of reasons. Specifically, the Gospel of Matthew mentions the blood curse and the Gospel of John many similar themes. In addition to this, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church traditionally affirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and that the covenant with God, since Jesus Christ was exclusively with the Christians and that the Catholic Church is the New Israel (superseding any ancestry-based Old Covenant; rendering Jewish rites null and void). These teachings had passed down through the Gospels, many Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and Ecumenical Councils over numerous centuries. Nevertheless, Cardinal Bea, with the blessing of Roncalli intended to press forward at the Second Session with these proposed changes. It had been decided that, after the setback of the Wardi affair, the schema, now entitled "On the Attitude of Catholics Toward Non-Christians and Especially Toward Jews" would be incorporated as a fourth chapter under a document "On Ecumenism"; this while a minor setback, was still satisfactory to its proposers because the drafting of that document also fell under the control of Bea's Secretariat.

In 1963, a controversial play was released by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth called The Deputy, which popularised a theme of insinuating Pope Pius XII's "indifference" to Nazi Germany's mass killing of Jews during World War II. The play, offensive to the sensibilities of Catholics, led to a rebuff by Pius XII's former advisor Giovanni Montini, Archbishop of Milan. In addition to this, Oesterreicher, writing in America, addressing the AJC and B'nai B'rith directly, urged them to speak out against the play. Before the start of the Second Session, John XXIII died in June 1963, setting off the 1963 Papal conclave in the middle of the council. Several years after the death of John XXIII, a "Prayer for the Jews" was published in Commentary Magazine (associated with the AJC), attributed to Pope John XXIII, starting a rumor that Roncalli had intended it to be read out before his death but that it was stopped by the Church. The author, one "F. E. Cartus", claimed that the prayer included the lines "We realize that the mark of Cain stands upon our foreheads. Across the centuries our brother Abel has lain in the blood we drew, or shed tears we caused by forgetting Your love" and "Forgive us the curse we falsely attached to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying You a second time in the flesh." Journalist Joseph Roddy alleged—in a 1966 Look Magazine article about the debate about Jews during the Second Vatican Council —that this prayer was a fabrication by Malachi Martin, one of the periti who worked under Cardinal Bea, a Jesuit priest who was known to be critical of Catholic hierarchy, and published his critiques under a wide number of pseudonyms. Roddy pointed to two timely and remunerated 1965 articles that were penned under the pseudonym F.E. Cartus, one for Harper's Magazine and one for the American Jewish Committee's magazine Commentary.

Roddy alleged that tidbits of information were leaked to the New York press that detailed Council failings vis a vis Jews under the pseudonym of Pushkin. Roddy claimed two unidentified persons were one and the same person—a "young cleric-turned-journalist" and a "Jesuit of Irish descent working for Cardinal Bea ... who was active in the Biblical Institute"—he figuratively named as Timothy O'Boyle-Fitzharris, S.J. so as not to reveal the true identity of his source. In his 2007 book Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, Edward K. Kaplan confirmed that Martin cooperated with the American Jewish Committee during the Council "for a mixture of motives, both lofty and ignoble. ... [He] primarily advised the committee on theological issues, but he also provided logistical intelligence and copies of restricted documents." It is confirmed in the book that Martin used the pseudonyms Forest and Pushkin. Kaplan acknowledges that The Pilgrim by Michael Serafian, was requested from Martin by Abraham J. Heschel, who arranged for the book to be published by Roger W. Straus, Jr.'s Farrar, Straus and Giroux printing company. It was published in the hope that it would influence the deliberations in the council. Once Martin's identity as author was revealed, it led to protests "and the book had to be removed from circulation at considerable financial loss to the publisher". Kaplan lastly states that Martin was the primary source of information for Joseph Roddy in writing his 1966 article for Look Magazine, and that O'Boyle-Fitzharris was, in fact, Martin. Kaplan judges the Roddy article as "dangerously misleading [due] to the credence it gives to the claim that without organised Jewish pressure the council declaration on the Jews would not have been accepted."

Giovanni Montini (who took the Papal name Paul VI) emerged from the 1963 conclave as a continuity John XXIII candidate for the council; the conservative elements in the Curia had backed Cardinal Ildebrando Antoniutti and the more radical liberal elements had proposed Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, but settled on Montini on the suggestion of Cardinals Frings and Liénart. Montini confirmed that Cardinal Bea's mandate on addressing Judaism had been renewed.

The Second Session of the council began in the Autumn of 1963 and by 8 November 1963 when "On Ecumenism", including its fourth chapter "On the Attitude of Catholics Toward Non-Christians and Especially Toward Jews" and fifth chapter "On Religious Liberty" was distributed to the Council Fathers, the liberals were confident, having gained in other areas of the Second Session. Elements in the Roman Curia, concerned that the chapters included heresy, approached Paul VI in private with severe concerns, accusing the Collegialists of setting up Bea as a de facto "Second Pope". A document was also published, "The Jews and the Council in the Light of Scripture and Tradition", arguing that the chapters were heretical. In addition to this, Paul VI was due to visit the Holy Places in East Jerusalem (then held by the Kingdom of Jordan) on 4 January 1964, whereby he would be meeting with Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, with the ecumenical goal of mending the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Members of the Curia thus argued that approving the controversial chapter on the Jews would jeopardize this effort and leave the 400,000 Orthodox Christians in the Arab world (including many Palestinian Christians) almost certain to oppose any sort of reunification with Rome. The first to third schemas should be put up to consideration and then at some later date (only two weeks of the Second Session remained) the fourth and fifth schemas should be looked at again. The stalling tactic worked and when the Second Session closed without the issue being voted on, Moderator, Cardinal Gregorio Pietro Agagianian was non-committal on a future review of the chapters.

Cardinal Cicognani's "middle path" revision

In the United States, where Western political power was centralised in the 1960s and most of the American Bishops represented at the council were staunch supporters of a pro-Jewish statement and a declaration on religious liberty—with the notable exception of Cardinal James Francis McIntyre—there was anxiety about the way the Second Session had ended voiced at the National Catholic Welfare Council. During Paul VI's visit to East Jerusalem, he travelled briefly through what was the State of Israel but was bogged down defending the record of Pius XII in light of The Deputy and made a speech hoping for Jews to convert to Christianity. While there, Maximos V Hakim, the Archbishop of Jerusalem from the Melkite Greek Catholic Church passed the Pope a document purporting to show "a slow but deliberate process of de-Christianization" initiated by the Israeli government. The concern of the American Bishops about the fate of the document was shared by the two secular Jewish points-of-contact for the American Bishops and thus the Vatican; Zacariah Shuster of the AJC and Joseph L. Lichten of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (Frith Becker of the World Jewish Congress also kept an eye on the proceedings, but took a more backseat role after the embarrassment caused by the Wardi affair). On the contested deicide issue, Cardinals Joseph Ritter, Albert Gregory Meyer, Richard Cushing and Francis Spellman were particularly insistent on supporting the Jewish position, as were Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle and Bishop Stephen Aloysius Leven; they also had the support of the Catholic Media Association. Some hope had been restored after six AJC members, headed up by Rose Sperry, had an audience with Paul VI in Rome and he personally agreed with the sentiment of Cardinal Spellman on the deicide issue.

A new draft document was prepared between January and September 1964. Paul VI had given the SECU orders to make mention of Islam and a general reference to non-Christian religions (in the hopes of alleviating the concerns of the Arab world; both the Eastern Catholics and the Arab governments). Also all reference to the much contested "deicide" issue would be removed due to the concerns the conservative faction had with it. This posed a problem for Cardinal Bea and his periti, as, if he agreed to making the document a general one about non-Christian religions, then it could be very easily argued that its drafting should fall under the newly created Secretariat for Non-Christians under Cardinal Paolo Marella, a conservative opponent of Bea. And if the SECU refused to make changes, it would naturally go back to Cardinal Cicognani's Coordinating Committee (a Curialist, upholding the Pope's agenda). Eventually, Bea agreed to remove the term "deicide", but deferred to the Coordinating Committee on adding statements about other non-Christian religions. With the document now under the Coordinating Committee, some restructuring took place: discreetly avoiding letting the American Cardinals know the details, especially. The new version highlighted, like the very first draft, Christianity as heirs of the Prophets, Patriarchs and covenant of the Old Testament, it expressed hope that the Jews will eventually convert to the Catholic Church (and thus Catholic sermons and catechesis, should avoid denigrating Jews). It also stated that the Church, "just as it severely disapproves of any wrong inflicted upon human beings everywhere, it also deplores and condemns hatred and maltreatment of Jews."

A report was “leaked” to The New York Times on 12 June 1964 reporting that the deicide issue had been cut out of the document. Whole sections of the confidential document turned up in the New York Herald Tribune. According to Edward Kaplan, the author of Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972, the AJC had secured a secret “mole” or "double-agent" within Bea's Secretariat, an eccentric Jesuit priest, Malachi Martin. As part of his activities, Martin leaked pieces of confidential information about the progress of draft documents to the AJC and the New York media (in particular The New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune and Time Magazine) under the name “Pushkin”. Shuster referred to Martin in reports as "Heschel's young friend". In May 1964, an insider “tell-all account” about the council was published as "The Pilgrim", under the pseudonym of "Michael Serafian". This work was released by Malachi Martin, at the behest of Abraham Joshua Heschel, through Roger Straus’ Farrar, Straus and Giroux publishing company. Disparaging to Christianity, it claimed “no one conscious of what has made modern Europe can deny that the pyres and the crematoria, the mephitic smoke and stench of the extermination camps in Nazi Germany, were, if not the logical conclusion, at least one extremist consequence of the normal Christian attitude to the Jews.” Around this time, Msgr George G. Higgins arranged an audience with Paul VI for Arthur Goldberg, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. And then Cardinal Cushing arranged a meeting between Paul VI and Shuster, with Heschel also present. The Pope and Heschel clashed as the latter demanded the topics rejecting the deicide charge and blood guilt be reinserted and forbidding all Christian proselytising to Jews, to which Paul VI would not agree. Shuster somewhat embarrassed, spoke to Paul VI more diplomatically in French to cut Heschel out (as a secular man, Shuster was less concerned about the proselytising issue). Like Jules Isaac before him, Heschel invoked the Holocaust, in an article from September 1964 he wrote, "I am ready to go to Auschwitz any time, if faced with the alternative of conversion or death."

Paul VI made his position known on the general direction of the council, with his August 1964 encyclical Ecclesiam suam, in which he tried to portray a cautious reformist position. He warned about relativism and even modernism, laying out a dialogue with the world which was still directed towards the ideal of conversion of non-Catholics, but on a practical level advocated cooperation for defending "religious liberty, human brotherhood, good culture, social welfare, and civil order." For the first time, during the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council, the contents of the draft schema "On the Jews and Non-Christians", was actually discussed on the floor by Council Fathers from 28 September 1964 and lasted two days. The "middle-ground" approach of the Paul VI-Cicognani revision (with the word deicide removed and mention of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism included), while trying to please all factions managed to alienate all sides in the process. Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini, Archbishop of Palermo representing the conservative faction, concerned with Catholic doctrinal integrity in rejecting the document, warned against "Talmudic teachings"  and stated at the podium; "It is clear that Christians love Jews, for such is the law of Christians, but Jews should be exhorted to cease hating us and regarding us as contemptible animals." As ever, Catholic leaders from the Arab world also spoke out against any document on the Jews, including: Cardinal Patriarch Ignatius Gabriel I Tappouni of the Syriac Catholic Church, Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh and Bishop Joseph Tawil of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and Archbishop Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir of the Maronite Church. Their view can be summed up by Archbishop Sfeir's statement that "We must not glorify Jews by such a declaration, we would only arouse Arab animosity and difficulties for bishops living in Arab lands."

The combined liberalising factions; headed up by the Rhineland Alliance and the American Cardinals; held different approaches, with ultimately the same goal in mind. One group, consisting of Cardinals Joseph Ritter of St. Louis, Albert Gregory Meyer of Chicago, Franz König of Vienna and Achille Liénart of Lille (supported by Bishops Elchinger and Méndez Arceo) took to the podium and spoke clearly against the "watered down" Paul VI-Cicognani revision and supported a full return to the previous draft authored by Cardinal Bea and the SECU, with the repudiation of the deicide theme against Jews of any generation clearly included. The other group, consisting of Cardinals Richard Cushing of Boston, Giacomo Lercaro of Bologna and Paul-Émile Léger of Montreal (supported by Bishops Nierman, Daem, Jaeger, Pocock and O'Boyle) proposed instead that the new draft should be accepted, to get its foot in the door, but amended to cover the deicide issue and an explicitly condemnation of what they called "persecutions and injustices" against Jews throughout the ages, to the present day. Two Americans, Bishop Leven and Archbishop O'Boyle, took the most radical position on the topic and proposed the document should repudiate any hope of Jewish conversion to Christianity, flirting with themes of universal salvation and dual-covenant theology respectively. Cardinal John Heenan, the English Archbishop of Westminster, also spoke in favour of the liberal faction on the issue at a press conference the following day. On the deicide question, he admitted that “Jesus Christ was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin,” but "the Jewish people as such cannot be held guilty for the death of Christ." He affirmed to "do all [he] could to satisfy the desires of [his] Jewish friends." The document was sent back to the SECU for amendments on 29 September 1964 with over 70 suggestions.

Cardinal Felici's letters, return to the SECU
The political backlash was immediate: Salah al-Din al-Bitar, the Ba'athist Prime Minister of Syria announced "world Zionism and Israel are trying to mobilize Catholics against the Arabs" and that the declaration "cannot be considered to be a purely religious matter.” Charles Helou, the President of Lebanon arranged for ten Bishops from the Levant and North Africa to telegram the Pope stating that the "Gospels teach clearly the Jewish crime of deicide. In this matter of the Jewish declaration we see clearly the intrigues of Zionist politics." Similar statements were made by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, at the insistence of the Egyptian government. The political implications of the document was discussed privately at the Cairo Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in October 1964 between Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian delegates. It was agreed that they would not make a public statement on the issue at the Conference but that Sukarno, President of Indonesia, would discuss it with Paul VI during his visit on 12 October 1964. At this meeting, Sukarno warned that all Vatican diplomatic missions in Arab countries might be closed if the document was adopted. At the same time that Sukarno was visiting Rome, a Palestinian delegation lodged a complaint with the Vatican about the document, seeing it as favouring Zionism by proxy, despite the assurances of the Vatican that it was not political in nature.

In the middle of this crisis, two letters had been received by Bea from Cardinal Pericle Felici, Secretary General of the council on 9 October 1964. It dealt with two key documents under the auspices of the SECU; "On Religious Liberty" and "On the Jews and Non-Christians". The letter stated that Paul VI wanted a completely new text to be drafted on religious liberty, with a more mixed commission involved in creating the draft; including the addition of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers), Cardinal Michael Browne, Fr. Aniceto Fernández Alonso (Master of the Order of Preachers) and Cardinal Giovanni Colombo. Of these men, the first three were unambiguously hostile to the document and the latter was a personal favourite of Paul VI. Meanwhile, the Jewish issue would not be addressed in a stand-alone document, but would become part of Schema 13. This too would be rewritten by a more mixed commission including members drawn from Bea's Secretariat and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani's Doctrinal Commission. Cardinal Felici's two letters were "leaked" by Malachi Martin and became features in publications such as The New York Times.

The liberals, drawn from the Rhineland Alliance and the American Cardinals, arranged a memorandum to be issued to the Pope to protest this in the strongest terms. A gathering took place at the residence of Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne, where a number of other Cardinals added their voice to the petition. Supporters of the Frings motion explicitly named by the media included longtime interested parties Cardinals Ritter, Meyer, König, Liénart and Lercaro, along with Cardinals Raúl Silva Henríquez of Chile, Julius Döpfner of Munich, Joseph-Charles Lefèbvre of Bourges, Bernardus Johannes Alfrink of Utrecht and Leo Joseph Suenens of Brussels. This was highly significant as it included three out of four Moderators of the Second Vatical Council (only the Eastern Catholic Moderator, Cardinal Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, did not sign up to it). They wanted the return of the Jewish document and the document on religious liberty to the SECU, they wanted to complain that the conservative minority were already able to "water down" some of the more radical elements in documents that had already been voted on and they were opposed to delaying the Council any further (rumours had abounded that Paul VI wanted to delay the council as it stood for three years, so the subjects covered could mature for a Fourth Session). With this memorandum in hand, the leader of the faction, Cardinal Frings held a meeting with Paul VI on 13 November 1964 to express the concerns of the liberal Council fathers. Frings demanded that the Pope not intervene unilaterally (invoking the recent victories for Collegiality) and to follow the procedural rules established by the council. Paul VI intimated that he would take into consideration concerns, but also wanted to go more slowly, holding that radical steps would confuse and alienate the Catholic faithful in places like Italy, Spain and Latin America.

Not just on this question, but in general, the Third Session of the Second Vatican Council had been a disaster for the conservative faction in the lead up to the presentation of the Jewish document in September 1964. Lumen gentium had been voted in favour of which endorsed Collegiality and married lay deacons. Unitatis redintegratio allowed for closer ecumenical ties with non-Catholics and allowed for all who are baptised the "right to be called Christian", endorsing in some cases for common worship. The proposed stand-alone document on Mariology, which was to declare the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mediatrix of All Graces (something Protestants would not accept), was thrown out and subsumed under Lumen gentium. As well as the document on the Jews, there was still outstanding a document proclaiming religious liberty and also Schema 13 on the horizon, with debates on unthinkable issues such as contraception, birth control, conscientious objection, disarmament, etc., no longer completely off the table. Thus, the conservative minority were fighting a rear-guard action on numerous fronts. At a meeting held on the same day as Frings’ audience with Paul VI, the conservative grouping the Coetus Internationalis Patrum under the Presidency of Archbishop Geraldo de Proença Sigaud met with Cardinal Ruffini in attendance to discuss what they should do next. They were confidence that Paul VI would never allow a stand-alone Jewish document due to the mounting Arab political pressure and decided, contrary to what Cardinal Felici had laid out, they would work against the Jewish issue being covered in Schema 13 (this document, On the Church in the Modern World, was going to pass, just its final composition was still in play and if the Jewish issue was under it then it could slip through). This would prove to be a tactical blunder.

Black Thursday, Council fathers vote
Following these discussions, the SECU under Bea prepared a new draft very favourable to the position of the liberals. The document stripped out all mention of conversion of Jews and condemning accusations of "deicide" was back. This, despite carrying a more ambiguous title, with Jews no longer explicitly highlighted, with the Declaration on the Church's Relationship to Non-Christian Religions. Bea hoped that Paul VI would be favourably disposed to this, with his upcoming visit to Bombay in the Republic of India, as a sympathetic comment on Hinduism was also included, alongside generic statements against "discrimination." When the document came to Cardinal Ottaviani's Theological Commission for examination, the Commission refused to incorporate it into Schema 13 and without proposing alterations to the text, simply returned it to the SECU. Then it went back to Cardinal Cicognani's Coordinating Committee (who, technically could not alter the text). The Egyptian Ministry of Guidance had got wind of the new draft through conservative allies in Rome and was preparing a memorandum from Christian leaders in the Arab world against it on 28 October 1964. Cicognani, who wanted to delay the document, wanted Egypt's memorandum to be brought to Paul VI's attention first. The memorandum asked why Rome would side with "10 million Jews over 100 million Arabs" and brought up the issue of Jewish deicide. On the other side, the American Cardinals (except McIntyre) and the Moderators of the council (from the Rhineland Alliance) were equally turning up the diplomatic pressure.

The pressure of the American Cardinals (including the on their side the American media) and support from the most of the Council Fathers, as well as the increasingly blunt approach of the Egyptians had made it difficult for the Pope to do anything but order the printing of the new version of the document. Cicognani delayed for eight days as the end of the Third Session was approaching and proposed a maneuver, wherein the three "natural" parts of the document would be voted on individually; Hinduism and Buddhism as the first, Islam as the second and then the more controversial and keenly contested section on Judaism as third. It was decided that the showdown on two of the most fought over documents would take place successively; the document On Religious Liberty would be released on 17 November 1964 with a vote on 19 November, while Relations with Non-Christians would be released on 18 November 1964 with a vote promised for 20 November.

The main battle was seen as the document On Religious Liberty and Relations with Non-Christians was closely connected to it but flowed downstream from it. The liberal and conservative factions were much the same with both documents and indeed the American theologian John Courtney Murray, keenly supported by most of the American Cardinals, had provided the underpinning principles of the text On Religious Liberty. The fiercely contested nature of the documents came to a head in what is known as Black Thursday or the "day of the bomb" (la bomba oggi). On the Thursday, when Cardinal Eugène Tisserant arose to announce that no vote would be taking place on that document due to 250 to 300 wishing for it to be delayed, uproar broke out on the floor of the Third Session. Cardinals Meyer and Ritter argued openly with Cardinals Siri and Ruffini at the table of the Council Presidents and the American Bishop Francis Frederick Reh, Rector of the Pontifical North American College, took up a paper and began a petition among the angry Bishops, which garnered 1,500 supporters. The Americans—Cardinals Ritter, Meyer and Leger—stormed off to confront the Pope. Paul VI was watching the proceedings on close circuit television and had Cardinal Felici called to restore order to the proceedings. Bishop Émile-Joseph De Smedt, a prominent liberal clergymen and talented orator, took to the podium and explained in a matter of a fact manner how, why and who was responsible for delaying the vote on the document, to applause.

The Pope, having decided on a course of action that the vote on the document On Religious Liberty would be suspended until a Fourth Session, could not backdown lest he undermine his own authority. And so the Third Session entered its finally voting day deeply divided, with the liberal faction deeply frustrated and political, diplomatic and media hostility from states on both sides of the Cold War conflict; East and West; hostile to the idea of the confessional state, aimed at the Holy See. Attempts to introduce a relaxed atmosphere and mollify the Bishops with the announcement that those in attendance would be given a gold medal and that new powers would be conferred upon the General Superiors changed little. Even the most ardent member of the Roman Curia opposed to a document on Judaism, Cardinal Ruffini, at this point relented with international hostility aimed at the Holy See over the issue of religious liberty, admitting that a vote go ahead on Cardinal Bea's Relations with Non-Christians, with the fight over the "bigger fish" On Religious Liberty successfully delayed for another day. There would be no split vote on different religions, all of the parts of the document would be voted on as a single entity. An overwhelming majority of the Council Fathers, 89%, voted in favour of the document, making Relations with Non-Christians an official document of the Second Vatican Council at the close of the Third Session. The document itself had not yet been promulgated by the Pope, so there was possibility for alteration to the text, but it could not now be removed from the council.

Fourth Session of the Council, 1964–1965
While leaders of the Jewish community in the United States had been elated by the ending of the Third Session, the exact nature of the text was not set in stone and there was still room to "nuance" or "qualify" the final text within Council rules. Between the closure of the Third Session on 21 November 1964 and the opening of the Fourth Session on 14 September 1965, a couple of controversies pertaining to the issue arose. Firstly, Luigi Maria Carli, the Bishop of Segni (a historically important diocese close to Rome) and member of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum wrote an article entitled, La questione giudaica davanti al Concilio Vaticano II in his diocesan magazine in February 1965 that affirmed the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter: namely, that adherents of Rabbinic Judaism at the time of Christ and to the present day, bore guilt for the trial and crucifixion of Christ and that "judgment of condemnation by God" hung over Judaism. The President of the American Jewish Committee bewailed the article as an "anti-Semitic attack." A few weeks later on Passion Sunday, Paul VI himself, within the sermon during Mass in Rome, spoke of the role played by Jews of the time in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (to the disappointment of Elio Toaff, the Chief Rabbi of Rome).

Most significant of all was the reporting in the New York Times by their Rome-correspondent Robert C. Dotty, that Paul VI had turned the document over to four doctrinal "consultants", to make it not contradict Sacred Scripture and to mollify Arab opinion. Cardinal Bea was visiting New York that week and denied these claims, stating that it was still under the SECU and he sought to clear up any misunderstandings with Morris B. Abram of the American Jewish Committee about the Passion Sunday and Bishop Carli controversies. Nevertheless, in Rome, discussions were taking place about modifications to Chapter 4 in May 1965: the word "deicide" was removed from the document forever, and additionally, Paul VI suggested adapting the phrase “deplores, indeed condemns, hatred and persecution of Jews” in order to exclude the words “indeed condemns”. These changes were voted on and accepted by elements of Bea's Secretariat and the final form of the document had been reached. While this was taking place, the Maronite President of Lebanon, Charles Helou had an audience with the Pope and consequently, due to rumours which reached across the Atlantic, the Vatican Press Office made statements saying that the declaration remained unchanged. In the New York Times, Dotty was publishing articles with dubious claims that the document was "under study" (when it had already been completed) and that the document may be dropped completely. These and other similar articles led to criticisms of the Church from Willem Visser 't Hooft, the Protestant head of the World Council of Churches who warned that if the Jewish issue was removed there would be consequences for ecumenism. The AJC similarly, through the person of Rabbi Tanenbaum, confronted Msgr George G. Higgins, who passed on the concerns to Cardinal Cushing. The Deutscher Koordinierungsrat der Gesellschaften für Christlich-Jüdische Zusammenarbeit also sent a letter to Rome complaining that there was now a "crisis of confidence vis-à-vis the Catholic Church.”

The earlier "tactical leaks" strategy involving Malachi Martin, the AJC's mole who fed the New York Times and TIME, to push the document in a direction desired by the American Jewish community was no longer effectual: Martin had been released from his priestly vows to the Jesuits in May–June 1965. The final form of the document had been released to the public, revealing that the Jewish elements had been watered down. A number of significant events took place that year, which garnered media attention: in October 1965, Paul VI became the first Pope to address the United Nations calling for “No more war, war never again.” While visiting the United States, at a Mass attended by 40,000 people at the Yankee Stadium in New York City (with millions more watching on television), Paul VI quoted John 20:19 from the Gospel of John which states "the disciples were bolted for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood before them and said "Peace be to you!"." While intended as a friendly message in "the world's most Jewish city", there were widespread misunderstandings and many Jews and liberal Catholics criticised the sermon as "unthinking" and linked this to the development of the document on the Jews. With the final vote approaching on 14 October 1965, both Jewish and Arab lobbies doubled-down and pushed for their agendas: Shuster of the AJC wanted the "weakening" of the document completely reversed, while a final 28-page Arab request was submitted, urging the Catholic Bishops to save the faith from “communism and atheism and the Jewish-Communist alliance."

While the form of the final document to be put to the floor at the Fourth Session of the Second Vatican Council had been disappointing to Shuster and Lichten of the AJC and B’nai B’rith respectively, Higgins convinced them that it was better to "settle for what they could get." Bishop Stephen Aloysius Leven gave some false hope to his friends in the American Jewish community that the American bishops could still vote against the new version but upon realising that this would simply add votes to the Arab & conservative side who wanted no document at all, the tactic was abandoned. By this point, even Cardinal Bea was content for the "deicide" issue to be dropped so long as the document was finally promulgated. Fr. René Laurentin, also wrote a late plea to strengthen the Jewish aspect of the document, but by now momentum was against further revisions. In its final form, 1,763 voted in favour of the document and 250 bishops opposed it. It was subsequently promulgated on 28 October 1965 by Pope Paul VI as Nostra aetate ("In our time"). The media in the United States and Europe subsequently ran with sensationalistic headlines such as "Vatican Pardons Jews" and "Jews Exonerated in Rome", despite the fact that the deicide issue had now been removed from the document. Meanwhile, diplomatic statements were prepared by the AJC and B'nai B'rith, which tried to focus on what they saw as the positives while also airing their disappointment that some of the biggest issues had been dropped and the document much watered down from previous versions. The most vocal critic was Rabbi Heschel, who described avoiding dealing with the deicide issue as “an act of paying homage to Satan.”

Summary
The document begins by stating:

"In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship."

The key observation about other faiths reads: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings, which though different in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of truth which enlightens all men."

Nostra aetate examined, among other belief systems, Hinduism and Buddhism, and stated that the Church "rejects nothing that is true and holy" in other religions.

Religious freedom became a new part of Catholic teaching with Vatican II and this declaration. Nostra aetate declared that there are positive elements in other religions and religious stereotypes and prejudices can be overcome through interreligious dialogue. Pope Francis said, "From indifference and opposition, we've turned to cooperation and goodwill. From enemies and strangers, we've become friends and brothers."

The final paragraph calls on Catholics to enter into "dialogue and collaboration" with those of other faiths.

It describes the eternal questions which have dogged men since the beginning, and how the various religious traditions have tried to answer them.

It mentions some of the answers that some Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other faiths have suggested for such philosophical questions. It notes the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept some truths present in other religions in so much as they reflect Catholic teaching and may lead souls to Christ.

Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for Abraham and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit. Some of these themes are repeated in chapter two of Lumen gentium.

Part four of the text deals with Jews. Repeated in the text is the traditional teaching that the Catholic Church sees the beginnings of its Faith in the Patriarchs and Prophets of ancient Israel. It also notes that the Apostles and many of the early Disciples of Jesus Christ at the founding of the Catholic Church had their roots in the Jews of that time, despite the fact that "Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading." The most significant departure in the document from previous approaches was that "this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues." This paved the way for Catholic–Jewish interfaith dialogue in the decades following on from the Second Vatican Council in a manner which was not commonplace before.

The final text of Nostra aetate, as promulgated in 1965, in regards to the question of Jewish deicide (that is to say Jewish culpability for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ) did not include the word "deicide" specifically, as it had in some previously proposed versions. On this issue, the document says "what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The exclusion of the specific term "deicide" and the textual ambiguity resulting from the fierce debates at the council is such that the text has been interpreted in different ways, the "cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction" allows conservatives to present that the Jews who had become Christians, then and since, were not culpable, while others present it as exonerating the Jews of deicide as a whole. At the time of its promulgation, liberal elements within the SECU and American Jewish organisations saw the final version of the text as a defeat for their position on this issue.

On the question of antisemitism, the document says that the Church "decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." Earlier versions of the text said that it "condemns" it, but this was removed from the final version.

The fifth part states that all men are created in God's image, and that the "Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."

Opposition
Nostra aetate, along with the adjacent documents, Dignitatis humanae (On Religious Liberty), Unitatis redintegratio (On Ecumenism), and Lumen gentium (The Church) are among the documents from the Second Vatican Council that are frequently highlighted for the most scathing criticism by traditional Catholics. The central accusation, from traditionalist Catholics, is that these documents express and encourage a spirit of religious indifferentism, that is to say that they dissuade the conversion of non-Catholics (contrary to the Catholic doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and thus, within this context, exclude them from the possibility of attaining eternal salvation), that they also discourage or confuse those who are already Catholic by suggesting that other religions may have validity and that there is a radical discontinuity with what the Catholic Church has already proclaimed Magisterially about non-Christian religions.

The statement "They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth", has been accused by the SSPX of being an explicit error within the context of Catholic teaching, due to the fact that the Catholic Church defines the one God in the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as the Holy Trinity (Islamic doctrine explicitly rejects the Divinity of Jesus Christ and does not acknowledge the Holy Ghost as God) and sacred scripture, in John 14:6 has Jesus Christ stating "No one comes to the Father except through Me". The document also states "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems", which traditionalists have argued is inappropriate to say in a Church document, claiming that within all major Islamic schools of fiqh, the punishment for a Muslim male to convert to the Catholic Church is the death penalty and that Islamic law places Christian non-Muslim nations into the category of dar al-harb ("house of war").

Post-Conciliar developments
To flesh out these implications and ramifications, the Vatican's Commission for Interreligious Relations with the Jews issued its Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate in late 1974. The Commission later released Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in the Teaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church in 1985.

The U.S. Congress passed a resolution acknowledging Nostra aetate ' fortieth anniversary.

The Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with Jews released a new document exploring the unresolved theological questions at the heart of Christian–Jewish dialogue. Entitled The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable, it marked the 50th anniversary of the ground-breaking declaration Nostra Aetate.

On the fiftieth anniversary of the document's release, Sayyid Syeed, the national director of the Islamic Society of North America's Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, pointed out that Nostra Aetate was released during the 1960s civil rights movement in the United States, at a time when Islamic centers and student groups were being founded on university campuses, and from these humble beginnings the "Catholic church acted as a big brother" in its understanding of a religious minority, a sentiment that has continued since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 when the Church opened its doors to them amidst growing Islamophobia.

title: Nostra aetate


text:
Talk:George III

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024
Unlike other British monarchs are Protestant, King George was isn't Anglican, but holds Protestantism in Scotland. 91.213.233.175 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 13:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

George III - Slavery
New Wiki user, & not a George scholar: upon reading the “Slavery” section someone called “Pitt” is referenced without first name or understanding of who that is. Reference should be fleshed out. I will leave amendements to someone more invested & certain than me. Putzac (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's Pitt the Younger, who was one of George's prime ministers. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He should probably be disambiguated with his father William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, who was also a Prime Minister. Pitt supported slavery, because it was "one of Britain's most profitable businesses". By contrast, his successor William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville passed the Slave Trade Act 1807 and prohibited the slave trade in the British Empire. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Would this benefit from a very short inline qualifier, as recommended in MOS:NOFORCELINK?--AntientNestor (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "William Pitt the Younger" is not sufficiently clear and distinct from "William Pitt the Elder"? What additional qualify would you suggest? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Following the suggestion in MOS:NOFORCELINK: just a very short bit of context so as "not [to] force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence", making it easier for users reading in print or otherwise offline.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well yes, sure. But what exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disambiguated from the father, so I do not need to be told that he should probably be disambiguated. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reign
Queen Elizabeth II is the longest British reign: 70 years. 73.151.82.123 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Very true - and not contradicted by this article, which states that George was the longest reigning male monarch. KJP1 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:George III


text:
Gravissimum educationis

Gravissimum educationis is the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Christian Education. It was promulgated on 28 October 1965 by Pope Paul VI, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,290 to 35.

Description
The document is generally referred to, not by its English-language title, "Declaration on Christian Education", but by the opening words of its original Latin text, which mean "extremely important education".

The document quotes at length from Divini illius Magistri (That divine teacher, 1929) by Pope Pius XI.

Contents

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) The Meaning of the Universal Right to an Education
 * 3) Christian Education
 * 4) The Authors of Education
 * 5) Various Aids to Christian Education
 * 6) The Importance of Schools
 * 7) The Duties and Rights of Parents
 * 8) Moral and Religious Education in All Schools
 * 9) Catholic Schools
 * 10) Different Types of Catholic Schools
 * 11) Catholic Colleges and Universities
 * 12) Faculties of Sacred Sciences
 * 13) Coordination to be Fostered in Scholastic Matters
 * 14) Conclusion

Parents as primary educators
"Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators. This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered. Hence the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs."

Gravissimum Educationis Foundation
On October 28, 2015, Pope Francis founded the Gravissimum Educationis Foundation intended to further scientific and cultural objectives aimed at promoting Catholic education in the world.

The Foundation consists of: the President and the Vice President; the Board of Directors; the Secretary-General; the Treasurer; the Scientific Committee; the Assembly of Sponsors; the Board of Auditors.

The Foundation is a not-for-profit, and pursues scientific and cultural aims to promote Catholic education in the world. In particular, the Foundation is committed to: the promotion of research, studies and publications on the thought of the Church as it concerns Catholic education and culture at the school and university levels; the support and organization of conferences and international scientific events on specific issues and projects; to award institutions and scholars who have distinguished themselves in their scientific activity and/or research as it relates to Catholic education and culture; networking and collaboration between educational institutions with regard to management training and qualification and to communication of new scientific discoveries and research; the strengthening of relationships and cooperation between international organizations and institutions dedicated to education.

title: Gravissimum educationis


text:
User talk:GillianAnderson

Welcome to the 'pedia! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask for help. Cheers! --maveric149

It has been a long time. Welcome back! --mav

Say, your profile's a little sparse. Are you the same Gillian Anderson who used to babysit my younger brother, Karl? It seemed unlikely, but I couldn't resist asking. --William Pietri 16:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:GillianAnderson


text:
Talk:Aryan race

Recent reverts by Beyond My Ken
Per WP:BADREVERT and WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per WP:3RR rule. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is not the case. You have made significant changes to the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, and I have disputed that change, for the simple reason that I don't believe they necessarily improve the article, and I also don't believe that they will get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page.  That is more than enough reason to revert, and by WP:BRD, since your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed.  Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential.  While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.This is the Wikipedia way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As for OWNBEHAVIOR, it is you who are exhibiting it: "I am a regular editor of this article". Indeed you are, with  edits beginning in July 2021, and that appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time, which is not the case. Having written 81% of the article, you're certainly entitled to feel STEWARDSHIP in regard to it, but you cannot stop other editors from being involved and expressing their views about the article.Please make your arguments regarding why you feel your changes are justified, so that a consensus discussion can take place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem? Quote me the exact WP:DIFF and your problem. You are still not stating the issue here. As I already said, I regularly edit this article and edit the topics whenever I find time and need. You have to have a reason to revert edits; failing to do so is a violation of WP:BITE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said IDONTLIKEIT, I said that they do not improve the article. Please make your arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles evolve over time; they change their size and shape.appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time - You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy. If you have read WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? -- WikiLinuz  { talk } 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:BRD-NOT says BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.So BRD does not bind here. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" says discuss first or no consensus is not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to restore revision 1152101176
On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:
 * 1) diff 1 - The paragraph interprets and analyzes a 1920 WP:PRIMARY source, so following advice WP:RESPTAG and policy WP:OLDSOURCES, I added  tag because such an analysis does not abide by WP:OR guideline. A tag was placed because the removal was contested here by.
 * 2) diff 2 - I copy-edited the subtopic to include additional context on Volksdeutsche, complementing the previous sentence that introduces Volksdeutsche, added how different racial groups are interpreted in Nazi doctrine and added a citation to a journal article for verifiability.
 * 3) diff 3 - I added further context into the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, compliment both previous sentences on Volksdeutsche and subtopic that talks about Connotation of Aryan in Nazi theories, and added citation to Britannica and peer-reviewed dissertations.
 * 4) diff 4 - I modified Britannica citation to  template since templated citations are preferred over raw text citation for consistency.
 * 5) diff 5 - I copy-edited and removed "indeed" because it was an unnecessary adverb here.
 * 6) diff 6 - I split the paragraph to remove the overcrowded section for ease of readability.
 * 7) diff 7 - I added a bibliography to a peer-reviewed dissertation that will be used in  (and in diff 8)
 * 8) diff 8 - I remove duplicate citation and used  to add page numbers on inline citations.
 * 9) diff 9 - To remain consistent with other numeric figures, I changed "six" to 6, added figures to "disabled people" data, and added "among others" indicating other Holocaust victims and linked to the respective article.
 * 10) diff 10 - I removed redundant links and added a link to another per MOS:SEEALSO.
 * 11) diff 11 - I added further context into the role played by ethnic Germans who lived outside the German Reich in the Holocaust, complimenting diff 2 and diff 3.
 * 12) diff 12 - I copy-edited the sentence to make it better reflect the cited material (Weikrt 2013) and wrote a better sentence.

All of the above diffs were mass reverted by in this diff and further by  in this this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited WP:BRD. stated in their edit summary (diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit, gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.

Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" states that avoid reverting with edit summary saying only discuss first.

Status quo stonewalling states that Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)

Since the other involved editors cited WP:BRD, this is what WP:BRD-NOT states (3) BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. (2) BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page. This also goes against WP:BADREVERT.

I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.

I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to dispute resolution is the way to move forward.

I vote to restore my last revision in lieu of current revision for the reasons stated.

Thank you, -- WikiLinuz { talk } 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on restoring revision content to adopt proposed changes
Should this version of the proposed changes be adopted into the article in lieu of this current version? -- WikiLinuz { talk } 04:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Diff between the two versions for added ease of comparison by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Support for the reasons stated exhaustively in Talk:Aryan race; the series of 12 edits does improve the article and therefore the proposed changes should be adopted into the article. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 04:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly support, as adding relevent sourced material. However, the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons listed in Talk: Aryan race. Chefs-kiss (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. That proposal would improve the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given the !votes here, I withdraw my objections to WikiLinuz' edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm confused by what you mean the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed. The current version of the articles does not mention the term Volksgemeinschaft at all (you can Ctrl + F and search for "Volksgemeinschaft"). That was added by me in one of those 12 diffs that I am proposing to be adopted into the current article. Mind to elaborate? -- WikiLinuz { talk } 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I must have misread the diff by Pincrete, then. My point is that the material on Volksgemeinschaft should definitely be included; it is very helpful to the reader to see these confusingly similar non-English terms in sequence and distinguished from each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The diff provided by Pincrete compared my revision vs. current revision. For convenience, this diff compares current revision vs. my revision. This is the exact revision number that I'm proposing to restore. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. I think I'm in agreement with your revisions, then. They seem well-founded and -sourced, and the flow is overall improved, with good material being added (such as the Volksgemeinschaft explanation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition of aryan race in nazism
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry, this is an easily verifiable historical fact and I do not understand how WikiLinuz can delete my contributions. Midofe1996 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry - No, is was not. Read the cited sources. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service Midofe1996 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @WikiLinuz Midofe1996 (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't contradict what I'm saying or what this article says. Slavs, Balkans, Spaniards, etc. are "European", but not "Aryan". Nazi's definition of Aryam primarily implies Nordic and Germanic peoples, or their supposed "racially purer" descendants. They did some mental gymnastics with regards to Hungarians, Finns, etc., but doesn't change anything. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 12:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @WikiLinuz
 * No, the Nordics were a part of the Aryan race, but this concept encompassed all Europeans including the Slavs and Mediterranean Europeans.
 * You have no evidence to support those myths, so let me edit the article. Midofe1996 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna argue with you if you have difficulty understanding what the sources actually say, but if you continue this style of editing (which you are doing on every Nazi racial theory related articles), you will be taken to ANI. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 15:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aryan race


text:
From Here to Eternity

From Here to Eternity is a 1953 American romantic war drama film directed by Fred Zinnemann and written by Daniel Taradash, based on the 1951 novel of the same name by James Jones. It deals with the tribulations of three United States Army soldiers, played by Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, and Frank Sinatra, stationed on Hawaii in the months leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Deborah Kerr and Donna Reed portray the women in their lives. The supporting cast includes Ernest Borgnine, Philip Ober, Jack Warden, Mickey Shaughnessy, Claude Akins, and George Reeves.

It won 8 Academy Awards out of 13 nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director (Fred Zinnemann), Adapted Screenplay, Supporting Actor (Frank Sinatra), and Supporting Actress (Donna Reed). The film's title originates from Rudyard Kipling's 1892 poem "Gentlemen-Rankers", about soldiers of the British Empire who had "lost [their] way" and were "damned from here to eternity".

In 2002, From Here to Eternity was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Plot
In 1941, bugler and career soldier Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt transfers from Fort Shafter to a rifle company at Schofield Barracks on the island of Oahu. Because Prewitt was also a boxer, Captain Dana "Dynamite" Holmes wants him on his regimental team. Because he once accidentally blinded an opponent during a match, Prewitt refuses. Consequently, Holmes makes Prewitt's life miserable and ultimately orders First Sergeant Milton Warden to prepare a court-martial. Warden suggests doubling Prewitt's company punishment as an alternative. Prewitt is hazed by the other NCOs and is supported only by his close friend, Private Angelo Maggio.

Prewitt and Maggio join a social club where Prewitt becomes attracted to Lorene. Prewitt confides to her he quit boxing after blinding his sparring partner. At the club, Maggio argues with stockade Sergeant "Fatso" Judson. Later, at a local bar, Judson provokes Maggio and the two nearly come to blows before Warden intervenes.

Despite being warned, Warden risks prison when he starts seeing Holmes' wife, Karen. Her marriage to Holmes is fraught with infidelity, made worse after the stillbirth of a child and Karen's subsequent infertility. Karen encourages Warden to become an officer, which would enable her to divorce Holmes and marry him.

Maggio is sentenced to the stockade after walking off guard duty and getting drunk, subjecting him to Judson's unqualified (and unauthorized) wrath. Prewitt discovers Lorene's name is really Alma, and her goal is to make enough money at the club to go back to the mainland and marry. Prewitt tells her his career is in the military, and the two wonder whether they have a future together.

A member of Holmes' boxing team, Sergeant Galovitch, picks a fight with Prewitt. Holmes observes without intervening, as does the regimental commander. Holmes is about to punish Prewitt again but does nothing after learning Galovitch started the fight.

Maggio escapes from the stockade after a brutal beating from Judson and dies in Prewitt's arms. Seeking revenge, Prewitt engages Judson in a back alley knife fight. Prewitt kills Judson but is badly wounded and stays with Lorene. Warden covers for Prewitt's absence.

After initiating a review into Holmes' conduct, the regimental commander orders his resignation in lieu of a court martial. Holmes' replacement, Captain Ross, reprimands the other NCOs, demotes Galovitch to private, and affirms there will be no more promotions through boxing. Karen tells Warden that Holmes' resignation is forcing them back to the mainland, but Warden reveals he has no interest in becoming an officer, effectively ending their relationship. Warden promises her that they will meet somewhere someday.

On December 7th, the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Despite Lorene's pleas to stay with her, Prewitt attempts to rejoin his company but is shot dead by military police when he refuses to halt. Warden identifies him as a hardhead but a good soldier.

Days later, Karen and Lorene coincidentally stand next to each other on a ship going to the mainland. Karen tosses her leis into the sea, wondering if she will ever return to Hawaii. Lorene tells Karen she is not returning as her "fiancé," whom she identifies as Prewitt, was a bomber pilot who died during the attack and was awarded a Silver Star. Karen recognizes the name but says nothing.

Production
S. Sylvan Simon suggested to Harry Cohn that Columbia buy the rights to the novel and Simon was assigned to make the film but died from a heart attack in May 1951 before he could make preparations for the film.

Hollywood legend has it that Frank Sinatra got the role in the film by means of his alleged Mafia connections, and it was the basis for a similar subplot in The Godfather. However, that has been dismissed on several occasions by the cast and crew of the film. Director Fred Zinnemann commented that "the legend about a horse's head having been cut off is pure invention, a poetic license on the part of Mario Puzo, who wrote The Godfather". One explanation of Sinatra's casting is that his then-wife Ava Gardner persuaded studio head Harry Cohn's wife to use her influence with him; this version is related by Kitty Kelley in her Sinatra biography.

Joan Crawford and Gladys George were offered roles, but George lost her role when the director decided he wanted to cast the female roles against type, and Crawford's demands to be filmed by her own cameraman led the studio to take a chance on Deborah Kerr, also playing against type.

Kim Stanley heavily campaigned for the role of Lorene, which later garnered an Academy Award for Donna Reed.

The on-screen chemistry between Lancaster and Kerr may have spilled off-screen; it was alleged that the stars became involved romantically during filming.

The songs "Re-Enlistment Blues" and "From Here to Eternity" were written by Robert Wells and Fred Karger.

In 1951, LIFE magazine reported the novel's sale price to Hollywood as $82,500.

Differences from the novel
Several of the novel's controversial plot points were changed or eliminated for the film to satisfy the Production Code Office and the U.S. Army. Army cooperation was necessary in order to shoot on location at Schofield Barracks, use training aircraft, and obtain military footage of Pearl Harbor for use in the film, as well as for cost reasons. According to screenwriter Daniel Taradash, both the Code Office and the Army were impressed by his script, which reduced the number of censorship problems. In the novel, Lorene was a prostitute at a brothel, but in the film, she is a hostess at a private social club. Karen's hysterectomy in the novel was caused by the unfaithful Holmes transmitting gonorrhea to her, but in the film, her hysterectomy resulted from a miscarriage, thus avoiding the topic of venereal disease. The changes were made to meet Code Office standards. In the novel, several of the enlisted men fraternize with homosexuals, and one soldier commits suicide as a result, but homosexuality is not mentioned or directly explored in the film. Again, the change was made to satisfy the Code Office. However, J. E. Smyth has written that the film's treatment of Judson's behavior towards Maggio "has all the indications of sexual abuse, and therefore reintroduces the fear of homosexuality in the 1930s military that the rest of the script had to repress for obvious reasons of censorship". In the novel, Captain Holmes ironically receives his desired promotion, and is transferred out of the company. In the film, Holmes is forced to resign from the Army under threat of court-martial for his ill-treatment of Prewitt. The Army insisted on this change, which the filmmakers reluctantly made. Director Zinnemann later complained that the scene where Holmes is reprimanded was "the worst moment in the film, resembling a recruiting short", and wrote, "It makes me sick every time I see it." In the novel, Judson's systematic abuse of Maggio and other prisoners, including Prewitt at one point, is portrayed in detail. However, in the film, Maggio's abuse happens offscreen, and it is told only verbally to Prewitt, who remains free. The Army required that the abuse of Maggio not be shown and that Judson's behavior toward Maggio be portrayed as "a sadistic anomaly, and not as the result of Army policy, as depicted in Jones' book". The filmmakers agreed, seeing these changes as improvements. Maggio, who survives and is discharged in the novel, dies in the film, having been combined with two other prisoner characters from the novel (one of whom is killed by Judson in the novel) to add drama and make Maggio a stronger, more tragic figure. The Army was further appeased by the filmmakers' inclusion of a line suggesting that Maggio's death was partially caused by his falling off a truck during a prison break, rather than solely by Judson's beatings.

Reception
Opening to rave reviews, From Here to Eternity proved to be an instant hit with critics and public alike, the Southern California Motion Picture Council extolling: "A motion picture so great in its starkly realistic and appealing drama that mere words cannot justly describe it."

Variety agreed:

"The James Jones bestseller, From Here to Eternity, has become an outstanding motion picture in this smash screen adaptation. It is an important film from any angle, presenting socko entertainment for big business. The cast names are exceptionally good, the exploitation and word-of-mouth values are topnotch, and the prospects in all playdates are very bright, whether special key bookings or general run."

Of the actors, Variety went on to say,

"Burt Lancaster, whose presence adds measurably to the marquee weight of the strong cast names, wallops the character of First Sergeant Milton Warden, the professional soldier who wet-nurses a weak, pompous commanding officer and the GIs under him. It is a performance to which he gives depth of character as well as the muscles which had gained marquee importance for his name. Montgomery Clift, with a reputation for sensitive, three-dimensional performances, adds another to his growing list as the independent GI who refuses to join the company boxing team, taking instead the 'treatment' dished out at the C.O.'s instructions. Frank Sinatra scores a decided hit as Angelo Maggio, a violent, likeable Italo-American GI. While some may be amazed at this expression of the Sinatra talent versatility, it will come as no surprise to those who remember the few times he has had a chance to be something other than a crooner in films."

The New York Post applauded Frank Sinatra, remarking, "He proves he is an actor by playing the luckless Maggio with a kind of doomed gaiety that is both real and immensely touching." Newsweek also stated that, "Frank Sinatra, a crooner long since turned actor, knew what he was doing when he plugged for the role of Maggio." John McCarten of The New Yorker concurred, writing that the film "reveals that Frank Sinatra, in the part of Mr. Clift's best friend who winds up in the stockade, is a first-rate actor."

The cast agreed; Burt Lancaster commented in the book Sinatra: An American Legend that, "[Sinatra's] fervour, his bitterness had something to do with the character of Maggio, but also with what he had gone through the last number of years. A sense of defeat and the whole world crashing in on him... They all came out in that performance."

Despite the rivalry between their respective characters, Sinatra and Borgnine, both from Italian roots, became lifelong friends. They corresponded with each other at Christmas season by exchanging cards signed using their film characters' names, "Maggio" and "Fatso". At a Dean Martin Celebrity Roast honoring Sinatra, Borgnine mockingly reprised his Fatso Judson character.

The film was number one in the United States for four weeks during September 1953, with a gross of $2,087,000. With a final gross of $30.5 million equating to earnings of $12.2 million, From Here to Eternity not only became one of the highest-grossing films of 1953, but also one of the ten highest-grossing films of the decade. Adjusted for inflation, its box office gross would exceed US$277 million in 2017 dollars.

Despite the positive response of the critics and public, the Army was reportedly not pleased with its depiction in the finished film, and refused to let its name be used in the opening credits. The Navy banned the film from being shown to its servicemen on its ships or Naval shore installations, calling it "derogatory of a sister service" and a "discredit to the armed services", although the Army and Air Force Motion Picture services purchased the film for screenings.

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a score of 88% from 100 reviews, with an average rating of 8.3/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "It has perhaps aged poorly, but this languidly paced WWII romance remains an iconic, well-acted film, featuring particularly strong performances from Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift." On Metacritic, the film holds a weighted average score of 85 out of 100 based on 21 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".

 * American Film Institute recognition:
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies: #52
 * AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions: #20

Awards and nominations
William Holden, who won the Academy Award for Best Actor for Stalag 17, felt that Lancaster or Clift should have won. Sinatra later said that he thought his performance of heroin addict Frankie Machine in The Man with the Golden Arm was more deserving of an Oscar than his role as Maggio.

Television
An unsuccessful television pilot starring Darren McGavin as 1st Sgt. Warden, Roger Davis as Pvt. Prewitt, and Tom Nardini as Pvt. Maggio was made in 1966.

In 1979, William Devane starred as 1st Sgt. Warden in a miniseries that became a television series in 1980.

title: From Here to Eternity