also, find article describing Vatican's "bad antisemitism" and "good antisemitism." "Bad" = "Jews killed Christ." Church has abjured that meme; in remarks regarding his book on Jews & Capitalism, Abe Foxman answered a question about Catholic church's movement on "supercession" problem. Jewish people get all worked up that Catholic church has taken control of god/salvation, etc. Sometime in the last days of Feb 2011, Benedict did make some statement about Church's acknowledgement that Jews did NOT kill Jesus; I guess that called mollifying. sheesh. Now, can Jews admit that they are killing Palestinians, and stop doing so?
and a Jewish response and remonstrance to "Reflections:" Antisemitism, Christianity, and the Catholic Church: Origins, Consequences, and responses.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_2_47/ai_n29191611/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
Antisemitism, Christianity, and the Catholic Church: origins, consequences, and responses
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_2_47/ai_n29191611/
Journal of Church and State, Spring, 2005 by Peter M. Marendy
For approximately 1,900 years, the relationship between Jews and Christians had been marked by anger, hate, and suspicion, particularly in Europe. The primary cause of this lamentable phenomenon was the commonly held Christian belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ. This charge of deicide was both extremely inflammatory and an unfair accusation--inflammatory because it provided religious and secular authorities with a justification for marginalizing and persecuting Jews and unfair because it condemned all Jews in perpetuity for the actions of a very small number of their ancestors. It formed the basis of the Catholic Church-sponsored anti-Judaic or Christian anti-semitic (1) prejudices, which consigned most European Jews to a second-class existence.
Until recently, historians have typically distinguished between this religious form of anti-semitism and the racist oriented modern anti-semitism, which came to prominence in the late nineteenth century. This essay aims to challenge this distinction by demonstrating that these forms of anti-semitism are more closely linked. Furthermore, it will argue that without the historical background of the religious and social prejudice towards Jews shaped by Christian anti-semitism, the development and success of a racially inflected modern anti-semitism in Europe would have been improbable. The most significant aspect of this thesis is that it challenges the accuracy of the Roman Catholic Church's official position on this issue represented in the Vatican document We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. (2) It will achieve these goals by first defining the concepts of anti-Judaism and anti-semitism. The essay will then provide all overview of the New Testament origins of Christian anti-semitism, particularly focusing on the problems created by uncontextual readings of prominent anti-Jewish statements found in the Gospels of Matthew and John. After this overview, the essay will provide a detailed analysis of prominent manifestations of Christian anti-semitism in the classical era and the Middle Ages, and reveal the close links between it and modern anti-semitism. Lastly, this study will conclude by examining the merits of the Catholic Church's attempt since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) (3) to atone for its role in the marginalization and persecution of Jews.
The terms "anti-Judaism"--also known as "Christian anti-semitism"--and "anti-semitism" refer to different, although closely related phenomena: prejudicial and discriminatory beliefs about Jews and Judaism. Anti-Judaism was "long-standing sentiment ... of mistrust and hostility" (4) held by Christians against Jews because the former, except for the apostles and very small communities of Christian Jews, rejected Jesus Christ's teachings and were purportedly responsible for his crucifixion. In contrast to this theologically based prejudice, the concept "anti-semitism," which was invented by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s, (5) refers to a racially based prejudice against Jews which denigrates and demeans them principally because of their ethnicity rather than their faith. Literally speaking anti-semitism means "opposed to Semites," (6) which technically also includes Arabs and other semitic peoples. However, in practice, anti-semitism refers only to an opposition or hatred of Jews and or Judaism. (7)
The origins of anti-Judaism or Christian anti-semitism (8) can be traced back to the growing estrangement between the early Christian communities and the Jewish leaders of formative Judaism (9) in the Roman Empire of the first century of the common era. According to a traditional reading (10) of the Gospels found in the New Testament, this hostility was a product of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other Jewish groups' attacks and plots against Jesus, and more specifically, their stubbborn refusal to accept his teachings about the Law and the Kingdom of God. (11) For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew (27:23-25), the charge of deicide--possible one of the most damaging and enduring calumnies against Jews by Christians--finds its roots in the alleged response by the "Jews" to Pilate's claim of innocence, "Let Him be crucified! ... His blood be upon us and on our children." Likewise, a literal reading of the usually virulent anti-Jewish rhetoric found in the Gospel of John has also encouraged and justified the historical marginalization and demonization of Jews. For instance, the author of this Gospel records Jesus denouncing a group of Jews with the words, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do" (Jn 8.44). (12) However, modern biblical scholarship, which among other things, recognizes the vital importance of the contextual nature of these and other New Testament writings, clearly demonstrates that the above literal readings of Matthew's and John's Gospels distorts their meanings. Therefore, for the sake of atoning for past mistakes, preventing them from being committed again, and building a new relationship with Jews, today's Christians must utilize and promote contextual readings of the Gospels.
As pointed out above, the Gospel of Matthew contains anti-Jewish rhetoric, which, if read uncontextually, produces an uncharitable picture of ancient Jewish communities. (13) In contrast, a contextually aware interpretation demonstrates that Jesus' anti-Jewish rhetoric actually reflects the animosity of Matthew's community towards the local Jewish leaders of formative Judaism with whom it is in conflict. Matthew's community predominantly consisted of Jewish Christians who kept the Law, but in a manner that was faithful to those values taught by Jesus--justice, mercy, and faithfulness. (14) However, this respect for the Law and the Gospel writers' "extensive use of the Old Testament ... in order to connect Jesus to the history of Israel and to portray him as the embodiment of Jewish hopes [and] its stress on Jesus as one who comes not to destroy but to fulfil the Jewish law," (15) did not prevent conflict with the local leaders of formative Judaism. To the contrary, the author of Matthew was keen to differentiate and protect his community from what he believed were the false teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. (16) For example, the Gospel of Matthew makes the observation that because these Jewish leaders do not support Jesus' "new interpretation" of the law, they are not righteous (17) Furthermore, Matthew's desire to discredit those Jews who made life difficult for his community in Antioch (18) motivated him to present all the different Jewish groups as one homogenized, united force against Jesus and to insidiously exaggerate the conflict between Jesus and Jewish leaders by projecting his contemporary problems with the Scribes and Pharisees of Antioch into the world in which Jesus inhabited. (19)
The Gospel of Matthew is not the only New Testament source that has engendered anti-Jewish sentiment. Comparatively speaking, the Gospel of John is even more anti-semitic than any other Gospel. Despite its rebel as the "spiritual Gospel" because of its "uplifting and challenging" portrait of Jesus as the Divine Word, and its "overall Jewish 'feel,'" (20) this Gospel presents a very negative picture of Jews living in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Some examples of this representation of Jews are: it is claimed that the Jews wanted to persecute, and kill Jesus (Jn 5:16-18). because, he healed on the Sabbath anti equated himself to God; they do not follow anything in the Torah (Jn 7:19-24); they are potentially violent towards him when they take up stones to hurl at him (Jn 8:59 & 10:31); and they bear responsibility for Jesus' death because the chief priests and police shout out to Pilate who finds him innocent to "Crucify him! Crucify him!" (In 19:6) (21) Traditionally, Christians have interpreted these and other anti-Jewish rhetoric as evidence that virtually all Jews in the time of Jesus were against him and his followers and used this as an excuse to persecute for nearly two millennia. However, a contextual reading reveals that these negative representations, like those of the Gospel of Matthew highlighted above, are not an accurate reflection of Jesus' relationship with the Jewish leaders of his day; instead, they are a comment on the struggle between John's community and the local Jewish authorities who had recently being excluding Christians from some synagogues. (22) Thus, the Gospel of John can be considered a polemic and apologetic against a group of local Jews who "refuse[d] to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God" which presents Jesus and his followers as separate from "the Jews" (23) and Judaism, (24) not a manifesto to individually and collectively denigrate and persecute Jews.
Unfortunately, this historical-critical approach to the New Testament did not exist until the late seventeenth century, but even then the Catholic Church shunned it until Pope Plus XII in 1943 sparked a renewal of biblical studies with the encyclical, Divinio afflante Spiritu. (25) Consequently, distorted representations and beliefs about Jews stemming from the New Testament became a popular and durable component of Catholic theology from the classical era to the mid-twentieth century.
In the classical era, many prominent theologians and church leaders revealed their disdain for Jews and their religion by attacking "Judaisers" (26) and reiterating the charge that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. For instance, in an attempt to counter Marcion's radical proposition to reject the Hebrew Scriptures as part of his wider campaign to distance Christianity from its Jewish roots, (27) church fathers such as Justine Martyr (100-165), Tertullian (160-225), and Origen (185-254) disclose their anti-semitism by, shifting the:
[r]everence for the Jewish tradition [found in the Hebrew scriptures] onto the Church while simultaneously demeaning the Jews as unworthy of the fruits of their own religion: because the Jews had rejected Jesus and the prophets, the entitlements of Judaism should now be transferred to Christianity. (28)
This demeaning theological depiction is also evident in the writings and speeches of Saints Melito of Sardis, Jerome (ca. 342-420), John Chrysostom (347-407), and Augustine of Hippo (354-440), who, in the name of apologetics, reveal their explicit distaste or hatred of Jews. In addition, the late second century bishop Melito of Sardis, who, fearing the prosperous Jewish community of Sardis which "undermined Christian claims to have replaced and perfected Judaism," was the first Christian to explicitly charge the Jews with "deicide." (29) In the Homily on the Passover, Melito of Sardis further demonstrates a prejudice against Jews with this interpretation of the "historical record":
Listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand. (30)
Approximately a century later, the renowned biblical scholar, St. Jerome, despite a personal relationship with a prominent rabbi similarly harbored a low opinion of Jews which p evident in the declaration, "If it is requisite to despise individuals, and the nation, so do I abhor the Jews an Inexpressible hate." (31)
Arguably two of the most influential classical Christian scholars and church leaders who harbored anti-semitic views were St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine of Hippo. St. John Chrysostom revealed his antipathy for Jews in his intemperate attacks against Jews and Judaisers expressed in his Eight Homilies against the Jews in 387. (32) For example, in Homily 1, Chrysostom describes the Jews as "pitiable and miserable" because they rejected "so many blessings from heaven." (33) He also supported the popular belief of deicide with the observation that Jews crucified "him whom the prophets had foretold." (34) Even more strikingly, he disparagingly claims that not only were Jews "dogs," (35) but incredulously they:
[s]acrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs, of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kingship, they became more savage than any wild beast. (36)
Despite the attempts of supporters to minimize their impact, (37) these attacks are unmistakably anti-semitic. A study of some of St. Augustine's works reveals that he shared a similar hatred for Jews. (38) According to Brackman, Augustine believed Jews were "filled with bitterness and gall like that they gave Jesus on the cross" and that the guilt for Jesus' death is an inherited trait. (39) While Augustine's "witness theory" (40) arguably qualifies this teaching, and thus seems to soften its impact, its ambivalent nature towards Jews became a "warrant for some Christians to express their attitudes in violent and inflammatory ways" and "encouraged inconsistency in subsequent church actions and policies." (41)
The consequences of the anti-semitic teachings of various church leaders and scholars, otherwise known as the "Adversus Judeos" tradition, (42) were highly damaging to Jewish-Christian relations in Europe. They were highly damaging because they formed the basis of the growing body of anti-Jewish law in the late antiquity that increasingly infringed on liberties Jews had enjoyed for hundreds of years within the Roman Empire, especially after Christianity was established as the official state religion in 380. (43) For instance, when the Theodosian Codes were instituted many church anti-Jewish proscriptions, such as the prohibition against the intermarriage between Jews and Christians, (44) were given an official status by the Roman state. Furthermore, when the Justinian Codes (or Corpus Juris Civilisus) came into force in 534, Jewish privileges were eroded even further. (45) As a result of the state's imprimatur of these church based anti-Jewish proscriptions, religious authorities could now more effectively promote their anti-semitic beliefs whereas previously they had to rely on a much less threatening moral authority to convince people of their purported merits. (46)
The passage of anti-Jewish laws in late antiquity greatly contributed to the spread and entrenchment of Christian anti-semitism in the emerging medieval society. While theologically there was more continuity than change in the church's negative attitude towards the Jews between these eras, (47) historical evidence strongly indicates Christian anti-semitism took on a more violent and hateful dimension. (48) Transparent examples of this successful spread and hardening of anti-semitic attitudes within Christian communities can be found in sixth- and seventh-century Spain. For instance after the Arian Visigothic King Reccared I (586-601) converted to Catholicism, the previously "peaceful" life enjoyed by Jews was soon undermined (49) when the third Council of Toledo (50) prohibited Jews and Christians from intermarrying, and prohibited Jews from holding public office or owning Christian servants. (51) A more extreme attack against Jews was made by King Sisebut who decreed in 613 that, "all Jews who refused compulsory baptism must leave Spain," which, reflecting the church's evermore ingrained anti-semitism, was lauded by the much admired Bishop Isidor of Seville as a "heroic deed." (52) Even compulsorily baptized Jews--who were often suspected of insincerity--were not immune From persecution. In 633, the fourth Council of Toledo declared these Jews were in bondage to the church thereby robbing them of even more dignity and freedom. It was not until the Arabs and Berbers invaded and conquered Spain in 711 that both Orthodox and compulsorily baptized Jews were spared from an increasingly oppressive anti-semitic milieu. (53)
The above examination of Jewish persecution in Spain clearly demonstrates that a significant segment of the Catholic Church was directly involved in fomenting anti-semitism and the violent persecution of Jews in the early medieval period. One church leader who greatly contributed to this spread of Christian anti-semitism in the medieval period was Agobard, archbishop of Lyon. According to Fredrick Leer, Agobard's anti-semitic prejudice was linked to a fear that because Christians could not match the Jews' missionary skills, the latter would become more influential and threaten the Carolingian Empire's Christian foundations. Agobard expressed this fear of Jewish improvement when he lambasted Emperor Louis for providing Imperial protection to the Jews in the letter De insolentia Judaeorum because tie claimed it "made the Jews insolent, so that they dared to abuse Christ quite openly." (54) The archbishop's anti-semitic worldview is also revealed in a pastoral letter he coauthored with two other bishops titled De judaicis Superstitionibus within which they demanded the prohibition on Christian and Jews from eating together and the immediate cessation of synagogue building. (55) Abogard justifies these discriminatory demands by arguing in this letter:
It is unworthy of our faith that a shadow should fall on the children of Light through their intercourse with the sons of Darkness. It is also unseemly that the Church of Christ, who should conduct immaculate and unblemished to her heavenly bridegroom, be defiled by contact with the unclean, senile and corrupt synagogue. It is strange to see the immaculate virgin, the promised Bride of Christ, seated at table with a whore. (56)
In addition, he describes Jews as "Sons of Devils" and instructs Christians to remember that, "the Jewish prophets themselves branded their race for all time as a sinful, useless race, as children of profligacy ... they are the descendants of the princes of Sodom and the people of Gomorrah." (57) Therefore, it is obvious Abogard and his supporters were in no doubt who was the church's and Christian Europe's major enemy--the Jews.
Bishop Abogard's transparent preudice towards Jews is only one of countless other historical examples of the church's keen support of Christian anti-semitism. One good example of this support was the inclusion during the ninth century of the anti-semitic petition Oremus er pro perfidis judaeis in the Good Friday prayer at the expense of the relatively benign, although patronizing, passage Pro Judaeis no flectant. (58) This petition along with similarly themed prayers and sermons were used in the church for centuries to propagate anti-semitic prejudice to the faithful and create a giant rift between Christian and Jewish communities. Evidence that this kind of preaching was successful in poisoning Christians' minds about Jews is starkly illustrated in the promise made by the leader of the First Crusade, Godfrey Bouillon, to "leave no single member of the Jewish race alive," (59) and the massacres and forced conversions of Jews in Rouen, Orlens, Limoges, Mainz, and Rome. (60) Also, the reason for the appalling massacre of tens of thousands of Jews in 1096 C.E. by unruly and fanatical Crusaders traveling through Europe--despite explicit orders from Emperor Henry IV to his knights not to attack Jews and the protection provided by some bishops--is inexplicable without the build-up of predujice and bitterness in Europe achieved by nearly one thousand years of anti-semitic teaching by the church. (61) Even Pope Callixtus II's (1119-1124) papal bull Sicut Judaies, which was an official attempt boll the church to curtail violence against Jews, (62) openly denigrated Jews for their "obstinacy" in remaining faithful to Judaism. (63)The evidence presented above strongly supports the thesis that there is a very close link between the spread of Christian anti-semitism in medieval Europe and Catholic Church tradition. However, there is evidence that religious prejudice was not the sole reason for this growing marginalization and persecutions of Jews by Christians throughout the Middle Ages. This essay will sup, port this argument by demonstrating how five historical developments from the Middle Ages indicate that race was also a factor, if only a small one, in the marginalization and persecution of Jews. These events include, the accusation of the ritual murder of St. William of Norwich (1144) and its link to the blood libel; the anti-Jewish cannons of the church's Fourth Lateran Council (1215); the anti-semitic preaching and boycotts against Jews led by the Franciscan order; and the virulent anti-semitic ravings of Martin Luther (1543).
The accusation of ritual murder, the blood libel, and charge of host desecration formed a potent nexus of calumnies against Jews commonly heard in medieval Europe. (64) The accusation of ritual murder was first recorded in 1144 and involved the myth that a group of local Jews in Norwich murdered a Christian child named William, an apprentice skinner, for the purpose of mocking Christ's crucifixion and acquiring Christian blood as a curative for hemorrhoids of which all Jews allegedly suffered from as punishment for Christ's death. (65) According to Thomas of Monmouth s biased account, (66) after a group of local Jews tricked William to go with them to a house, he was bound, tortured, stabbed, and fixed to a cross while rioting in a "spirit of malignity." (67) While no Jew was directly harmed-because of the murder, (68) ritual murder accusations and blood libels against Jews quickly spread to other areas in England and throughout Europe often resulting in cruel murders and massacres of Jews. (69) Also, a key element of this evidence was based on the belief that there was a secret worldwide Jewish network, which met every year to determine the place where the next ritual murder of a Christian child was to take place. This is an important observation because as Marc Saperstein, quoted by Carrol, explains, "earliest recorded account of Jewish ritual murder ... is embellished with the suggestion of an international Jewish conspiracy ..."--an idea which would become a key element of Nazi modern anti-semitism. Unsurprisingly, despite the Emperor Frederick II's and Pope's Innocent IV's rejection of the ritual murder allegations against Jews, (70) charges of ritual murder continued to be made into the twentieth century (71) and cults were even established to venerate some of its victims. (72)
The Fourth Lateran Council's (1215) anti-Jewish decrees are further evidence that Christian anti-semitism had a racial component. The anti-Jewish decrees required Jews to wear a special emblem to help prevent Christians from inadvertently mixing with them and restricted their movements during Holy Week. (73) While the second of these does have a clear connection to traditional religious prejudice, the first restriction suggests that influential people in the Catholic Church considered close or actual physical contact with Jews a threat to a Christian s health which is reminiscent of the biological character of modern anti-semitism. Also, Pope Innocent III's claim in the Lateran decrees that the Jews "unscrupulous use of money power ... had reversed the natural order--the free Christian had become the servant of the Jewish slave ..." [my emphasis] (74) also demonstrates that factors other than religion contributed to Christian anti-semitism in the second half of the Middle Ages. The Franciscan's organization of boycotts and creation of "piety funds to undercut the Jews and drive them out of business" in parts of Italy is further proof that Christian anti-semitism was not solely motivated by religious issues. (75) Likewise, Martin Luther's anti-semitic diatribe, The Jews and Their Lies of 1543, cannot be solely blamed on a religious prejudice against Jews. His advice to Christians is particularly baneful and it is difficult not to see parallels between it and future Nazi anti-semitic rhetoric. For instance, he recommends people, "set fire to their synagogues or schools ..." and proposes, "their houses also be razed and destroyed...." (76) According to lames Carol the ultimate aim of such measures was to make Germany juderein or free of Jews, (77) which history tells us was a major policy of Hitler's Nazi regime. (78) However, while this evidence demonstrates that Luther targeted Jews as a distinct group for ridicule and violence, his prejudice was largely based on supersessionist claims of religious superiority over Judaism as opposed to the racism of modern anti-semitism. The investigation of Christian anti-semitism's development from the New Testament era to the end of the Middle Ages ha-s presented compelling evidence that it was a key part of the Catholic Church's teaching and tradition. It also demonstrated that anti-Jewish hatred. and persecution could not be blamed solely on religious blot This essay intends to further strengthen these observations by examining t e role of the Catholic press in perpetuating anti-semitism during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is an important task because its results will challenge the notion propounded by the Catholic Church in the Vatican document, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shaoh, that there is no direct relationship between Christian and modern anti-semitism.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, newspapers and periodicals became an increasingly important medium for shaping Europe's public, opinion, for various reasons such as greater press freedoms and unproved literacy rates. (79) According to David I. Kertzer the Catholic Church hierarchy learned the value and power of the modern press during the notorious Edgardo Mortara affair (80) and thus almost certainly would have been encouraged by the rapidly growing numbers of Catholic periodicals and newspapers between 1870 and 1900. (81) Some prominent examples include: the Assumptionist religious order's French publication La Croix, the Vatican owned newspaper L'Osservatore romano, and the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica. (82) Even a. cursory study of their output of the late nineteenth century uniquivocally demonstrates they pursued anti-semitic agendas. For instance, La Croix, which has been described by the historian Stephen Wilson as "the most important mouthpiece of Catholic anti-semitism," (83) shamefully contributed to the poisonous political environment during the infamous Dreyfus Affair in France by publishing anti-semitic drivel. (84) However, while La Croix anti L'Osservatore romano (85) played a significant part in the spread of anti-semitism in the modern era, La Civilta Cattolica is more significant because of its close connection with the Vatican and its blatant propagation of both traditional and racial anti-semitism. (86)
La Civilta Cattolica's support for anti-semitism is readily apparent in many of its issues. In its early years of publication, this journal stereotyped "Israelites" as materialistic and often described them as "rough and inclined, to idolatry, immoral, and liable to pejury, murder, theft, adultery." (87) Furthermore, in an 1853 issue, it stated that the collective suffering of Jews for deicide was a fact,
And in conformity with Catholic dogma responsibility toward God is not limited to the person but extends to the family, to the city, to the people, to all humanity. It was because of the transgression of a single person that humanity was subjected to the infection of that guilt that we call original and to the weight of the punishment that follows it. The curse of Ham still afflicts his race, the descendants of the ancient Jews still bear the mark of the wrath of God carved on the forehead. (88)Moreover, as Jose David Lebovitch Dahl observes, in the 1850s La Civilta Cattolica described Judaism as a "false sect of superstition" which is "pernicious" because of its obscene" Talmud and, along with Freemasonry and spiritism, was an "act of the devil, against God." (89) Eventually, this singular hatred of Jews led one of its contributors to absurdly conclude that Jews were assisting "the devil's destruction of the church and Europe." (90) Also, the La Civilta Cattolica's polemical campaign against the Risorgimento (91) blurred the distinction between traditional and modern anti-semitism by describing its political enemies as the "Jewish-liberal party" and arguing that Jews should never have the same legal rights as Christians because they are an "essentially foreign" element whose membership in a disciplined and invincible international Jewish army or "republic" prevents them from assimilating and becoming "real European citizens." (92)
The penchant of La Civilta Cattolica for blurring this distinction between old and new forms of anti-semitism and more generally disseminating racist anti-semitism in Europe is particularly-evident after 1880. For example, Kertzer observes that the journal, "kicked off its long campaign against Jews in December 1880 with a series of thirty-six fiercely anti-semitic articles" in which, among other anti-semitic nonsense, it was recommended that governments introduce "exceptional laws for a race that is so exceptionally and profoundly perverse" for the benefit of their citizens' well being. (93) One of the most influential and perfervid anti-semites to contribute material to this journal was Father Giuseppe Oreglia di Stefano. In his contributions to La Civilta Cattolica, Father Oreglia leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that he hates Jews and laments the turn of events which allowed them to exercise the same political rights as other Italian citizens. Some common themes to appear in his anti-semitic creeds include: the Jews were happier when they lived in ghettoes, which allowed Christians to live more peaceful lives; Jews were prevented from becoming wealthy in the former papal lands through job restrictions so they would not be "too despised"; Jews were always regarded as foreign people "and [were] never considered to have the right of either native-born or naturalized citizens"; and it is imperative that special laws be introduced to curtail the Jews because "if this foreign race is left too free, it immediately becomes the persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, thief, and devastator of the countries where it lives" [my emphasis]. (94) The last of these themes is particularly significant-because Father Oreglia explicitly identifies and attacks Jews as a race rather than as a religious group. Oreglia makes this racial distinction even more clearly in this passage from an 1880 article:
Oh how wrong and deluded are those who think that Judaism is just a religion, a people, and a nation! While it is certain that others can be, for example, both Catholic and either Italian, French or English ... or Protestant and a member of whatever country or nation ... it is a great error to believe that the same is true of the Jews. For the Jews are not only Jews because of their religion ... they are Jews also and especially because of their race [my emphasis]. (95) When these thoughts are combined with his warning that secularized Jews who, as the principal nucleus of the ascendant sects, conspire to exterminate all of Christian society and dominate the universe, it is plain that La Civilta Cattolica made a significant contribution to the growth of modern anti-semitism. (96)
There can be little argument that the above analysis paints an insalubrious picture of the Catholic Church hierarchy's predisposition towards Jews and Judaism over nineteen hundred years of history. However, there is historical evidence which indicates that a far more tolerant and respectful attitude about Jews existed among at least some members of the church immediately before and during World War II. For instance, the encyclical Mit brenneder Sorge (1937) by Pius IX is invariably cited by defenders of the church's record in relation to Jews and the Nazis as a clear example of its true disposition about anti-semitism. (97) Jacques Adler's study of Vatican Radio broadcasts during World War II also reveals some convincing evidence that the church under the leadership of Pius XII did not support anti-semitism and the Nazi persecutions of Jews it inspired, therefore challenging the view that this pope committed a "sin of omission." (98) For example, although Pius XII did not explicitly refer to the Jews in his Christmas message to the College of Cardinals in 1942, Adler argues that the church's revulsion about Nazi atrocities against Jews was expressed on the Vatican radio directed towards France which had official church support. Specifically, he says that, "until the end of 1942 Vatican radio was allowed to express the church's opposition to Nazi ideology and conduct a campaign in defence of those persecuted for racial reasons." (99) Furthermore, Adler asserts that these broadcasts inspired Catholics to resist Nazi rule and protect Jews and other persecuted minorities. (100) Intriguingly, some church supporters are citing, the unpublished encyclical Humani Genris Unitas (The Unity of the Human Race) written in September 1938 on the instructions of Pius XI as further evidence of the Vatican's deep concerns about Nazi racist ideology and the persecutions of Jews. (101) In summary, it is plausible to suggest that the Catholic Church and in particular Pius XII was not as silent about Jewish persecution as many church critics maintain. Nevertheless, questions remain--were these efforts enough? Did the church hierarchy do enough to stop Nazi persecution of Jews and curtail the anti-semitism that evidently sustained it?
continued next page
