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.”
- For Constantine, religious differences were impediments to the power that had replaced Maxentius and Licinius. In this way, choice (“heresy”) to be religiously different became defined as treason, a political crime. ...Can it be a coincidence that attacks on Jews, both rhetorical and physical, became a notable pattern of Christian behavior only after the cult of the cross is established, not at Nicaea precisely, but in its aftermath?
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:
- ...there is no apology for Holy Week preaching that prompted pogroms until Holy Week liturgies, sermons, and readings have been purged of the anti-Jewish slanders that sent the mobs rushing out of church.... Forgiveness for the sin of anti-Semitism presumes a promise to dismantle all that makes it possible.
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.
« Back...
