Combox for:
Anti-Semitism in the Church Fathers and Historically Among Catholics: Resources and Recent Catholic "Institutional Repentance"
[7 July 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...athers-
and.html
I wrote on the CHNI forum:
When I compile these lists, they always go beyond the question at hand, as a general treatment that a broader range of people may be interested in. I think that has value, if I do say so, as a collection of articles on a particular subject. Part of my job as an apologist is to recommend resources that can be trusted to be orthodox Catholic, and not dissident liberal nonsense (or far-right radtrad "traditionalism").
Also, there may be some disagreements on particulars, in which case it makes sense to collect relevant sources and allow people to make up their own mind (another constant policy of mine: encourage people to exercise their critical faculties).
But if someone wants a "short answer," there has definitely been a troubling theme of anti-Semitism in Catholic and Christian history. I'm not sure how much of it was officially sanctioned by the Church (I suspect, a lot less than is usually assumed by those who highlight these things), but there is plenty to be ashamed of, and to repent of. The Catholic Church has made great strides in the last generation to do just that, and I am delighted to see it. We don't have to pretend that tragic things didn't happen, thatdid happen.
It is necessary to distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism -- neither of which are permitted by the Church today, but still the former is distinct and quite different from the latter. Of your suggested examples of patristic anti-Semitism, the only one that qualifies as unquestionable anti-Semitism is the quote from St. John Chrysostom' infamous homilies against the Jews. But the other passages do not in anyway qualify as anti-Semitism. At worst they are examples of the common anti-Judaism found in the early Fathers, and the passage from St. Ignatius isn't even anti-Judaism, but would be "anti-Judaising." St. Ignatius was condemning the heresy that Christians had an obligation to observe the Law of Moses, and the New Testament itself condemns the same heresy. Of course many absurdly and stupidly claim the New Testament is anti-Semitic too.
Again, the passages from St. Justin and Origen are examples of anti-Judaism, not anti-Semitism. The passage from St. Augustine, however, is not even anti-Judaism, but is a vehemently expressed desire that Jews who are opposed to Christianity would be converted.
If you are anti-Zionist like I am am. Are you anti-Semitic?
Not necessarily. Many Jews -- the ultra-ultra-orthodox haredim, for example -- are opposed to Zionism, and I doubt they are anti-Semitic. It is certainly the case that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic are often found together, and many anti-Semites probably prefer to claim they are merely anti-Zionists, but still these are two different ideas and shouldn't be readily conflated.
Thanks, Jordanes. I added your excellent clarifying remark to the post itself.
Jordanes,
Could I ask you or anyone-does the Church have a position on the the establishment of the state of Israel? I know there some Protestants groups who welcome it as a sign of The Second Coming.
I heard that the Vatican didn't recognise it until recently.
I better say here that I feel a great (understatement) injustice has been done to the Palestinians.
I would say now that the pain of the Holocaust is matched by the pain of the Palestinians.
It is often forgot many many Christian Palestinians were displaced at the time of its creationas as well.
Could I ask you or anyone-does the Church have a position on the establishment of the state of Israel?
I don't think the Church has taken one official position on the establishment of the modern state of Israel. Of course the Church desires peace, and respect for the human rights of all interested parties. It has long been the position of the Holy See that Jerusalem should be "internationalised" in some way, though the Israelis understandably want it to be their capital and are uninterested in "sharing" it.
I know there some Protestants groups who welcome it as a sign of The Second Coming.
I think there are even some Catholics who see it as a prelude to the end times, but I'm not sure we can see the return of Jews to their ancient homeland as a fulfillment of prophecy. I can see a case for that interpretation, but chiefly the prophecies of return and restoration are to be seen allegorically, fulfilled through the influx of Jews and Gentiles into the Catholic Church, not through a geographical migration to the Holy Land.
I heard that the Vatican didn't recognise it until recently.
I think that's right, and even now the Vatican and Israel still have not normalised their relations.
I better say here that I feel a great (understatement) injustice has been done to the Palestinians.
Many injustices have been done to them. And yet it was probably inevitable, after centuries of anti-Jewish persecution culminating in a systematic attempt to kill every Jew on earth and anyone who had, or was suspected of having, Jewish ancestry, and after the unprecedented violence and destruction of World War II, that the United Nations would seek to resolve the conflict in the Holy Land by creating parallel nation-states for Jews and Arabs living in the Holy Land.
I would say now that the pain of the Holocaust is matched by the pain of the Palestinians.
With all due respect, the suffering that Arabs in the Holy Land have endured in the past century doesn't even come close to the suffering that Jews enduring during the Holocaust, let alone during the previous centuries. Every Jew in Europe was targeted for extermination. The Arabs of the Middle East have never been targeted in that way by the Israelis -- though many of the Arabs have expressed their desire to eliminate every Jew in Israel or even every Jew on earth.
It's interesting to note that, after all the bloodshed and hatred of the past 60 years, the goal almost everyone is now working for is essentially a return to the sort of arrangement that was originally attempted in 1948: two parallel nation-states. If the Arabs of the Holy Land had not rejected the UN partition in 1948, they'd already be where they (or where many of them -- groups like Hamas still want total control of the land that the pagan Romans called Palestine) are trying to get today.
Jordanes,
'though the Israelis understandably want it to be their capital and are uninterested in "sharing" it.'
I think the Palestinians would 'understandably' want it to be their capital as well. I mean it was their capital or population centre before it was confiscated from them.
This next is troubling, you write;' Many injustices have been done to them. And yet it was probably inevitable',
That word-'inevitable' What was inevitable? That someone had to pay the price maybe for the Holocaust?
You write;'It's interesting to note that, after all the bloodshed and hatred of the past 60 years, the goal almost everyone is now working for is essentially a return to the sort of arrangement that was originally attempted in 1948: two parallel nation-states. If the Arabs of the Holy Land had not rejected the UN partition in 1948, they'd already be where they (or where many of them -- groups like Hamas still want total control of the land that the pagan Romans called Palestine) are trying to get today'.
I think it would take me some little time if my land had been taken from me and many of my relatives had been killed or had fled. I think it would take some little time time to get over that. I think my inital resposes would be to fight to get what is rightlyfully mine back.
'Every Jew in Europe was targeted for extermination' by Europeans. Not by Arabs and they have paid the price, the Palestinians have.
I knew this would happen.
With all due respect, the suffering that Arabs in the Holy Land have endured in the past century doesn't even come close to the suffering that Jews enduring during the Holocaust, let alone during the previous centuries. Every Jew in Europe was targeted for extermination. The Arabs of the Middle East have never been targeted in that way by the Israelis -- though many of the Arabs have expressed their desire to eliminate every Jew in Israel or even every Jew on earth.
I accept it doesn't equate with the magnitude of the Holocaust But is is CONSIDERABLE suffering they have to endure. They are constantly humiliated by roadblocks, many thousands are locked up in Israeli prisons, families are torn apart. That's what this state has brought to the poor Palestinians people. It has destroyed their oneness, has reduced them to humiliation and penury.
The anger of this is not direscted at you Jordanes but at the whole of 'The International Community' especially America which seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the plight of the Palestinians.
Truly, forgive me-because you couteously answered my questions. And you've got this.
It's just what I feel
I think the Palestinians would 'understandably' want it to be their capital as well. I mean it was their capital or population centre before it was confiscated from them.
Sure. It's just that Jerusalem is currently in Israeli hands. Personally I'd rather like to see Jerusalem as the capital of a Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, but under the circumstances that's not a realistic hope. I think the best option at this time would be some kind of "shared capital" arrangement. But the Israelis, having gotten control of Jerusalem, are most unwilling to accept anything less than a united Jerusalem as their capital.
This next is troubling, you write;' Many injustices have been done to them. And yet it was probably inevitable',
That word-'inevitable' What was inevitable? That someone had to pay the price maybe for the Holocaust?
No, no, not at all. Suffering injustice never gives the sufferer the right to exact revenge, nor does it justify the infliction of injustice on those who have perpetrated injustice. I was only putting the founding of the modern state of Israel in some historical context: right after the war, the U.S. and Europe during those years were very eager to try and avoid the eruption of new wars, and right after the Holocaust there was certainly a deep sense of guilt that motivated the desire to give Jews a nation-state in their ancestral homeland. My point was that the 1948 UN partition was not undertaken with the intent to visit injustice on the Arabs of Palestine.
I think it would take me some little time if my land had been taken from me and many of my relatives had been killed or had fled. I think it would take some little time to get over that. I think my inital resposes would be to fight to get what is rightfully mine back.
The trouble is that the 1948 partition -- an attempt to draw borders according to ethnic population, resulting in a map that showed a pretty bizarre-looking pair of states -- was rejected from the outset by the Arab population, who did not want any partition at all. As I recall (it's been some time since I've studied these events), they immediately declared war on the Jewish state, but were defeated and then fled from lands that the UN had in fact apportioned to them. Their initially-negative response to the partition contributed to a worsening of their situation, and now we are finding it all the more difficult just to try to return to something like the 1948 status quo.
'Every Jew in Europe was targeted for extermination' by Europeans. Not by Arabs and they have paid the price, the Palestinians have.
Yes, the Arabs have suffered and are suffering injustice. I'm only saying that it does not exceed what Jews have suffered, and is not really of the same nature as what the Jews suffered during the 1930s and 1940s -- it isn't a systematic genocide, but the lamentable and pernicious effect of a decades-old ethnic conflict. But of course t
But of course there is always a good degree of subjectivity in trying to compare suffering to suffering. Jesus was just one man, so one would not expect His suffering to measure up to other human suffering -- and yet He says, "See if there is any sorrow like unto My sorrow."
I accept it doesn't equate with the magnitude of the Holocaust But it is CONSIDERABLE suffering they have to endure.
There's no doubt about that. We must continue to pray and to work for a just and equitable peace between Israelis and Arabs in the Holy Land. . . . and pray for a deep and true conversion of both peoples to the Catholic faith.
'But the Israelis, having gotten control of Jerusalem, are most unwilling to accept anything less than a united Jerusalem as their capital.'
We should wrest contol from them and give it back to the people it was taken from.
See, we here a lot about the restitution of Jewish wealth after the 2ndww. We never hear about restitution for the Palestinians.
I don't see as a religious question at all. It was just a movement of people who stole someone else's land . Not only stole their land but their houses as well. They actually live in the houses they stole.
My anti Semitism coming out. I remember talking to an Israeli. He introduced his friend to me; 'He's Spanish'.
Oh, so he was brought up in Spain but lives in another country. My point really is about International law. Which other group of people born in one country are given the right to live in another solely because of their religion?. I want to live in Italy but if I went to the Italian Embassy and said I want go to your country and you've got to let me because I am a Catholic they would give me short shrift.
'My point was that the 1948 UN partition was not undertaken with the intent to visit injustice on the Arabs of Palestine'. Just an accommodation. Literally an accommodation because, as I said earlier, a lot of Israelis still live in Palestinian homes.
I see your historical perspective. Let me try; there's a people living on their own land for centuries. It's population is made up mostly of Muslims but also includes a cultured Christian community. Anyway, a movement made up of people from the four corners of the world come and take your land off you and banish you and your family to neighbouring states, where you have to live in refugee camps, a burden to the host country.
That is huge suffering.
At least with the Holocaust (I am not joking) it came to an end relatively quickly.The Palestinians have been suffering for the last 60 years.
This 'ancestral home' idea. remember I am coming from this in a purely legalistic sense of International law. When does a land lose it's 'ancestral home' status? In the 12 and 13th centuries England ruled great swaithes of what is modern day France. If there was a movement of English people now to get back their 'ancestral home' they would be laughed at.
Just a different(historical) perspective,
We should wrest control from them and give it back to the people it was taken from.
Can’t do that – there aren’t any more Jebusites living on earth today.
Seriously, though, attempting to wrest control of Jerusalem and giving it to a Palestinian Arab government would only make matters worse over there. It’s better to try to negotiate some kind of agreement over Jerusalem. There’s been too much killing already.
I don't see as a religious question at all. It was just a movement of people who stole someone else's land.
True, the establishment of Israel was much more a function of the popularity of secular nationalism during the 1800s than it was motivated by a religious desire of Jews to return from exile. Even so, it’s a gross oversimplification to call Jewish migration to the Holy Land during the 1800s and early 1900s “stealing someone else’s land.” The migration was permitted by the Ottoman government and for a while was even encouraged by the British government. In truth, our ancestors in the U.S. “stole someone else’s land” --- it was taken from the Indians, from the Spanish, from the French, sometimes honestly, usually dishonestly or by force, many times during wars that the U.S. started without adequate justification --- but the U.S. government is not going to listen to demands that the U.S. be dissolved and all descendants of English colonists and immigrants be deported to Britain. Nor would the British government take seriously the demands that descendants of the Anglo-Saxon barbarian invaders be deported to Germany and the island be returned to the Welsh. Despite the cruelty and injustice of past land seizures and conquests, at some point you just have to accept it and try to live with the new neighbors as best you can, especially when they have no intention of leaving.
My point really is about International law. Which other group of people born in one country are given the right to live in another solely because of their religion?
Not because of religion, but many nations allow children of émigrés to reclaim their citizenship merely because their parents had been citizens.
As for international law, the state of Israel’s existence is based pretty firmly in law, since it was created by the UN, and could not have been created if the British government, former rulers of the Palestinian Mandate granted to them by the League of Nations, had not encouraged Jewish settlement. (Britain later tried to clamp down on Jewish immigration, but by then it was too late: the Jews kept coming, even illegally.)
I want to live in Italy but if I went to the Italian Embassy and said I want go to your country and you've got to let me because I am a Catholic they would give me short shrift.
As you’ve said, the founding of the state of Israel was not a religious act, and the Israeli “right of return” is granted on an ethnic basis, not a religious one. Jewish identity is inseparable from religion, o
Jewish identity is inseparable from religion, of course --- without the covenant with Abraham and the Sinaitic covenant, there would not be a Jewish people --- but Israel today is a secular entity, and they grant citizenship to any Jew, even atheists.
This 'ancestral home' idea. Remember I am coming from this in a purely legalistic sense of International law. When does a land lose its 'ancestral home' status?
Well, never --- but in terms of international law, it really depends on what the nations of the earth deem acceptable or tolerable or just. The mere fact that a nation once occupied a region of the earth does not grant it permanent claim to that region.
Now, there are religious Zionists today, who see the divine promises and prophecies as Israel’s inalienable title deed to the Holy Land, but Zionism in its inception was a secular phenomenon, a species of nationalism --- some Jewish leaders felt that the only sure safeguard against anti-Semitic harassment was a nation-state. Initially they thought of establishing a state in Uganda, but historical and vestigial religious sentiment inevitably caused them to opt for the Holy Land instead. So the “right of return” is to enable Jews in the diaspora to take advantage of the opportunity to live in a Jewish nation-state, not to enact a supposed right to reclaim their ancestral homeland. After all, before the Jews arrived in the Holy Land, it belonged to the Canaanites, whose descendants live throughout the Mediterranean today: Lebanon, Tunisia, Malta, etc. Canaan was their ancestral homeland some 3,500 years ago, but that gives them no “right of return” in international law.
Thanks for allowing me to pick your brains Jordanes.
I have no time at the present.
Plus I would like a rest due to the fact this subject (the injuctice to the Palestinians as I see it) inflames strong feelings in me. Probably my deep seated anti-Semitism.
My deep-seated anti-Semitism; If I see Ehud Olmert on TV even for a few moments I have to turn it off and shut off all the lights and lay down and listen to Tony Bennet just to calm down.
Difficult question this (don't answer if you don't want)
Dave had an earlier post; 'Why is the Catholic Church so hated?'
What about this question;'Why are the Jews so hated?'
We even now still talk about 'The Jewish Question'. Why is there a question?
Only if you have time and you think it worth replying
I suspect my motives,
I need help I think,
No time no,
Commenting by HaloScan
