Virus of Anti-semitism

[Kismet]

[url="http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01132"]http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive...gi/tablet-01132[/url]

21/01/2006
Virus of Anti-semitism
Editorial


The report that the Vatican is reviewing the traditional Catholic attitude to Judas Iscariot is another sign of a welcome improvement in relations between Judaism and Christianity. Judas was for centuries treated as a symbol of the Jewish rejection of their Messiah, which in Catholic folklore, if not in official doctrine, justified the “teaching of contempt” towards Jews for all time. This was only fully repudiated in 1965, when the Second Vatican Council revived the Pauline doctrine that God had not abandoned his covenant with the Children of Israel, and hence that it was wrong to treat them as accursed or cast out.

Pope Benedict XVI, consistent with the policy of his predecessor, underlined the significance of that change in his speech to a Jewish and Israeli delegation which he received at the Vatican, as reported in The Tablet this week. He even went a little further, touching on the sensitive question of what happened to God’s providential favour for the Jews at the time of the Holocaust, or Shoah. Even then, he said, “in the dramatic moments of the Shoah the hand of the Almighty guided and sustained them”. Should he visit Auschwitz on his expected visit to Poland later this year, he may expand on that theme.

Historically the roots of racial anti-Semitism lay in a perversion of Darwinism and nineteenth-century German nationalism, but Christianity had already poisoned the mind of Europe against the Jews on religious grounds. Christians have to approach the forthcoming Holocaust Memorial Day in a spirit of humility, therefore, but also determined that the lessons of history will not be forgotten. The virus of traditional anti-Semitism is not extinct, and that includes in Britain. It is even more alive elsewhere in Europe: the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Alexei II, has recently called for action by the state to stem hate crimes after an anti-Semitic attack in a Moscow synagogue.

But the greatest danger now is Islamic anti-Semitism, which receives less condemnation from Muslim leaders than Christian anti-Semitism does from Christian leaders. Outbursts like those of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are only an extreme example of a common thread in militant Islamic rhetoric against Israel and the Jewish diaspora. This teaching, far in excess of what any sane doctrine of freedom of speech would allow, constitutes a threat to world peace. It is sadly paradoxical that such utterances come from those Muslim leaders who claim to be most faithful to the teachings of the Qur’an, when for centuries Jews enjoyed much greater security in conservative Muslim countries than in Christian ones.

But Holocaust Memorial Day is not an easy option for British Christians, either. The national history curriculum for schools was recently criticised by historians for paying too much attention to Hitler and the Holocaust. They wanted a broader spread and better balance. For religious believers, there is also the danger that the Holocaust, not to mention the contemporary conflict in the Middle East, will be taken as further evidence that religion lies at the heart of too many bloody conflicts in the world, which would be better off without it. The point is refutable, but needs to be refuted. Otherwise the case goes by default.

[Era Might]

[quote]This was only fully repudiated in 1965, when the Second Vatican Council revived the Pauline doctrine that God had not abandoned his covenant with the Children of Israel, and hence that it was wrong to treat them as accursed or cast out. [/quote]

This is a gross caricature of history. Pope Pius IX condemned anti-semitism in 1938, I would say, even more forcefully than the Second Vatican Council:

[quote]Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites.[/quote]

The key contribution of Nostra Aetate was that it finally dealt with the matter in a formal, Magisterial setting, that of an Ecumenical Council.

[quote]Christianity had already poisoned the mind of Europe against the Jews on religious grounds.[/quote]

Again, another caricature. Animosity toward Jews was, indeed, a plague throughout Christendom for centuries. It was not, however, "Christianity" that spurred this animosity, but Christians.

An important distinction is necessary here, that this historical animosity was usually anti-Judaism, and not anti-Semitism. The Fathers, for example, who were unduly belligerent toward Jews did so not because of race, but because of a theology of supercession that went too far.

The Flagellents, who went around terrorizing Jews, were threatened with excommunication unless they stopped:

[quote]Beneath an appearance of piety, [the Flagellants] set their hands to cruel and impious works, shedding the blood of Jews, whom Christian piety accept and sustain.

--Pope Clement VI[/quote]

[Colin]

Era Might misunderstands the papal comment opposing anti-Semitism given on July 14, 1938. Pope Pius XI told a group of visiting Belgian Catholics: “We acknowledge everyone’s right to self-defence, to take the means to protect themselves against any threat to their legitimate interests. But anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are all Semites”. H. de Lubac, Christian Resistance to Anti-Semitism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990) 26-27. This statement is indeed difficult to assess, both in terms of its content and impact. Concerning its content, the positive conclusion is radically undermined by the first section. The language of self-defence was precisely the language used by the Church (and the Nazis) to justify the boycotts of Jews in Germany, Poland and elsewhere. (As early as 1884, the Anti-Semitic party in Hungary stated in a bill presented to parliament that “anti-Semitism merely means Christian peoples adopting a stance of self-defence against Jewish semitism”.) To include such a remark in this context negates much of the usefulness of the sentiment. Concerning its impact, these words appear nowhere in the Vatican’s records, either official or semi-official. The reason is that they were not given in a public address, but in a private conversation to three Belgians. The words are assumed to be sincere, but the Pope, as a lawyer, knew well the Roman axiom: “Quod non est in actis non est in mundo”. They were unofficial, off the record, and reconstructed from second-hand testimony. Had the Pope wished to make a public statement, he was quite capable of doing so. As it was, while they were deeply appreciated by sections of the French and Belgium churches, they reappear nowhere in the Vatican, Italian or Polish Catholic press. In other words, the remark was delivered in such a way that those who wished to could avail themselves of it, while those who differed could, with equal validity, ignore it.

It was also during Pius XI’s tenure that the Civilta Cattolica wrote that “In its original form, anti-Semitism is nothing but the absolutely necessary and natural reaction to the Jews’ arrogance ... Catholic anti-Semitism-while never going beyond the limits of moral law-adopts all necessary means to emancipate the Christian people from the abuse they suffer from their sworn enemy”.

Given that the Catholic Church supported anti-Jewish legislation in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Italy, the papal statement was clearly not seen by Catholic Church leaders of the time as condemning activities which singled out and discriminated against Jews. Within Hungary, for example, the first general anti-Jewish laws were passed on May 28, 1938. Speaking in their official capacity in the Upper House, the leaders of Hungary’s Catholic Church supported the bill. Cardinal Jusztinian Seredi, the Prince Primate of Hungary justified it by emphasizing the cultural, economic and political threat of the Jews to Christian Hungary. The only concern raised regarded the question of converts to their own churches. In general, the Catholic Church in Hungary supported the government as it legislated to deprive Jewish families of their livelihoods, their access to higher education and their place in society. Within Rome, the Vatican view of this legislation was given in the June 24, 1938 edition of the Civilta Cattolica. Under the title of “The Question of the Jews in Hungary”, the paper approved of the legislation. It noted that the “supremacy” of the Jews had become particularly “disastrous for the religious, moral and social life of the Hungarian people”. Stating that the “low birth rate among them (the result of their low level of morality)” makes it possible to hope that their numbers in Hungary will diminish considerably, it continued: “the Jews still remain the masters of Hungary”. It suggests that an ideal solution would be “a peaceful exodus of the Jews from Hungary, which they have so abused”. The paper then stated: “the anti-Semitism of Hungarian Catholics [is neither] vulgar and fanatical anti-Semitism, nor racist anti-Semitism; it is a movement defending national traditions”.

Many other examples could be given, but simply put, either the cardinal of Hungary and the Civilta Cattolica misunderstood the Pope, or Pius IX did not issue a blanket condemnation of anti-Semitism.

I wish he had.

[avemaria40]

The Romans and Jews got into fights before Christianity was born. When the Romans started persecuting Christians, it was because they had seen one too many "messiahs" that when the real One came along, they saw Him as a threat and ordered crucifixion. As for the argument by some "traditional" Christians that the Gospels condemned the Jews, historically, the authors of the gospels were Jewish but had accepted Jesus as the Messiah (before there was a distinction between Christians and Jews) and were angry at the Jews who did not. Sadly, this was misinterpreted by uneducated poor masses of people and power hungry nobles who took positions among the clergy but in reality had little piety, humility, or charity. As a result, Anti-Semitism became prevalent

[Era Might]

[quote]I wish he had. [/quote]

He did.

Although anti-semitism, as such, was not addressed in a formal setting, the Church still made known her opposition to hatred and violence, against Jew or Gentile. Like Pope Pius IX before him, Pope Pius XI made himself clear in Mit Brennender Sorge.

But, as I said, Nostra Aetate did make a valuable contribution because it was a formal treatise, at an Ecumenical Council no less.

[quote]the papal statement was clearly not seen by Catholic Church leaders of the time as condemning activities which singled out and discriminated against Jews. [/quote]

That's not surprising. Many Catholics today ignore Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as much as they ignored Pope Pius IX or Mit Brennender Sorge:

[quote]In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men--the "enemy" of Holy Scripture--oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies.

...

The Bishops of the Church of Christ, "ordained in the things that appertain to God (Heb. v, 1) must watch that pernicious errors of this sort, and consequent practices more pernicious still, shall not gain a footing among their flock. It is part of their sacred obligations to do whatever is in their power to enforce respect for, and obedience to, the commandments of God, as these are the necessary foundation of all private life and public morality; to see that the rights of His Divine Majesty, His name and His word be not profaned; to put a stop to the blasphemies, which, in words and pictures, are multiplying like the sands of the desert; to encounter the obstinacy and provocations of those who deny, despise and hate God, by the never-failing reparatory prayers of the Faithful, hourly rising like incense to the All-Highest and staying His vengeance.
[/quote]

There's no doubt anti-semitism was a serious problem among Christians, particularly in Europe.

You can always appeal to believers who spurn the plain mind of the Church. But the fact remains that the Holy See was vehement in its opposition to anti-semitism. Belligerence toward Judaism as a religion was a separate question, theological in nature. Anti-semitism, however, was a matter of common sense and natural law. Violence and hatred for other people was unacceptable.

Pope Benedict XV wrote to American Jews in 1916:

[quote]The Supreme Pontiff... as Head of the Catholic Church, which, faithful to its divine doctrines and its most glorious traditions, considers all men as brothers and teaches them to love one another, he never ceases to indicate among individuals, as well as among peoples, the observance of the principles of the natural law, and to condemn everything that violates them. This law must be observed and respected in the case of the children of Israel, as well as of all others, because it would not be comformable to justice or to religion itself to derogate from it solely on account of divergence of religious confessions.[/quote]

This, by the way, was published in Civilta Cattolica.

Albert Einstein, a Jew, commented on the Church in the early 20th century:

[quote]Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.[/quote]

And Pope Pius XII was especially known for his love towards Israel. Addressing a group of Roman Jews after the war, he said:

[quote]I am only the Vicar of Christ, but you are his very kith and kin.[/quote]

Edited January 23, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote]Era Might misunderstands the papal comment opposing anti-Semitism given on July 14, 1938. Pope Pius XI told a group of visiting Belgian Catholics: “We acknowledge everyone’s right to self-defence, to take the means to protect themselves against any threat to their legitimate interests. But anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are all Semites”. H. de Lubac, Christian Resistance to Anti-Semitism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990) 26-27.[/quote]

By the way, I don't have this book, so I can't check the source, but the citation I gave was not from July 14th, but September 6th, 1938. Our citations seem different, which would indicate that these are two separate statements by Pope Pius IX. The citation I gave is fuller. I'll cite it again, for clarity:

[quote]Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites.[/quote]

These comments were made known everywhere except Fascist states (for obvious reasons).

[quote]Many other examples could be given, but simply put, either the cardinal of Hungary and the Civilta Cattolica misunderstood the Pope, or Pius IX did not issue a blanket condemnation of anti-Semitism.[/quote]

Or, more plausibly, they were corrupted by the wisdom of this world, and blind to Divine Truth, even when it was staring them in the face. They wouldn't be the first Bishops in history.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Era Might