| Full Product Review | ||||||||
by James Carroll
That Christianity has a legacy of antisemitism is undeniable. That Christianity, and in particular the Catholic Church, has a legacy of suppression of dissent and unorthodox ideas is also undeniable. What is interesting, however, are the ways in which both of these legacies are not only related, but are in fact dependent upon each other. By ranging over the entire history of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church, James Carroll describes how the Church has worked to preserve power both through the suppression of internal (unorthodox) dissent and external (Jewish) dissent. Carroll begins and ends his massive work on the same point: describing how contemporary Catholics attempt to come to grips with the Holocaust, the role played in it by Catholics and their Church, and how the Catholic history of antisemitism contributed to it all. This was Carroll's personal starting point as well, because it was in wondering how this all could have happened that he was driven to research his Church's history and treatment of the Jews. But Church failures in the Holocaust are only the most recent and violent part of the story - as Carroll shows, the death camps are a culmination of two thousand years of entrenched anti-Judaism. What is key here is that the problem originally was anti-Judaism - not a racial or political anti-semitism, but a fierce opposition to the religion of Judaism istself. The history moves from the harsh anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels to Constantine's transformation of the cross into the primary Christian symbol, and even worse transforming it further into a sword, and on through blood libels, scapegoating, and ghettos. Through much of Christian history, people have imagined that Jesus and his disciplines were in conflict with "the Jews" - but this ignores two important points. First, it should be obvious to everyone that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jews, making any conflict not a struggle between "us" and "them," but an internal disagreement among Jews. But second, and perhaps more importantly, there was no single social or religious entity known as "the Jews." There were a wide variety of groups and perspectives among the Jewish poeple and no monolithic force for any one dissident to oppose. Thus, instead of a sectarian conflict among Jews, the gospels portray "the Jews" as a single group, wholly blameworthy, in an apparent attempt to gain favor among the Romans, the most likely group to have had any great interest in getting rid of Jesus. This allowed later Christians to continue scapegoating "the Jews" over and over:
The role of Constantine in shaping the Christian church and church history should not be underestimated, and that is why Carroll named his book after him. What is most important to remember about Constantine is that he ascended the throne of an empire which was fragmented and in disarray, thus his chief goal was always creating and maintaining unity, be it political, economic or, eventually, religious. For Constantine, one of the greatest threats to Roman domination and peace was disunity. Christianity filled the need for a basis of religious unity quite well. Christians may have been a minority through the empire, but they were a well-organized minority. In addition, no one had already tried to claim their political allegiance, leaving Constantine no competitors and giving him a group of people who would be supremely grateful and loyal for finally finding a political patron. But because of Constantine's desire for unity, he ruthlessly enforced his particular brand of orthodoxy among the various Christian groups - there was just no way he would allow them to be weakened as a political force through internal strife or disagreement. First, he moved to eliminate the external challenges posed by paganism, destroying their temples and books. After that, he ordered that those Christian groups which had been deemed "unorthodox" also be eliminated, thus removing internal challenges. Very quickly, theological disagreements which had been a part of the Christian experience became "unchristian."
What makes this story even sadder is that Carroll is able to demonstrate that none of it needed to happen. At every turning point, it was possible for the Church to move in a direction of greater accomodation and peace with people in general and Jews in particular. But the Church continually turned in the other direction, choosing doctrines or ideas which made matters worse. A good example would be the conflict between Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux. Abelard offered the argument that Jesus died on the cross not to pay a debt from humanity to God and, thus, change God's mind about whether or not humanity deserved to go to hell (which makes God sound very monstrous). Instead, Abelard argued that Jesus died on the cross in order to change the mind of people. It was supposed to be a revelation of God's love of humanity and thus convince that we are now and have always been saved, if we wish it. Thus, God's suffering through Jesus really was for our sakes, not for his own. Many in the church were skeptical about these ideas, and Bernard lead the attack upon them, writing extensively about his "errors." There is a connection here with the problems of anti-Judaism, and it goes beyond the obvious fact that the Church ultimately rejected a more humane idea of God and went with one which seemed too interested in blood. That connections is in the person of Bernard himself. Athough Bernard instructed Christians that "The Jews are not to be persecuted, killed, or even put to flight," his reasons were not because they were human beings to be repsected. Instead, the reason they were to be left alive was to serve as a constant reminder of what happened to Jesus and the suffering they put him through. On the one hand, he said that they should be protected; but on the other, he said they were enemies of humanity and God, thus creating an impossible contradiction for the average person. This would have been much harder to defend had Abelard's conception of God gained wider respect: it is easier to label someone an enemy of humanity when they reject God's blood-payment to himself than when they, as part of God's chosen people, fail to see the need to be reminded of their God's love. Eventually, Abelard was condemned as a heretic, whereas Bernard became a saint. Thus, the Catholic Church ended up owing more to Bernard than to Abelard, much to its own detriment and to the detriment of the Jews. Carroll goes on with detailed discussions of the Crusades, the Inquisition(s) and the relationship between Hitler and Church policies, eventually concluding his book with a call for a new Council, Vatican III, which would more thoroughly eliminate the last remnants of hatred from Catholic doctrine. He also asks that the Church acknowledge all of those roads not taken and forgotten heroes who might have caused things to turn out differently. Moreover, Carroll includes very specific recommendations for reform:
Like Garry Wills, Carroll isn't looking to create a church-within-a-church. His arguments are designed to convince church members that their organization has gone astray over hundreds of years, but that it is also possible to return it to a better path. He does not, however, want them to try and do it without the help of the clergy and Church hierarchy. But whether or not that is possible remains to be seen.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| Important product disclaimer information about this About site. |
