A new anti-Semitism
By James Carroll
THE ORIGINAL sin of the Christian church, and the culture that derives from it, is contempt for Jews, a disorder that continues to infect religious belief and popular attitudes. Discussions of the contemporary resurgence of anti-Semitism focus on such phenomena as the anti-Jewish bigotry of many Muslim preachers or the ready leap from criticism of Israeli policies toward Palestinians to an undermining of the entire project of the Jewish state.
But this year, a startling manifestation of foundational hatred of the Jewish people has occurred in the very heart of well-intentioned Christian faith. When the blockbuster DVD of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was released a few weeks ago, the astounding appeal of an already hugely successful film was made clearer than ever. For many, this portrait of the suffering and death of Jesus is a powerful religious experience, despite its hyper-violence and despite a blatant portrayal of "the Jews" as Satan's allies in the murder of one revered as the Son of God. The film exacerbated problems already adhering in anti-Jewish Gospel texts by drawing on eccentric anti-Jewish "visions" attributed to a 19th century German mystic named Sister Anna Katharina Emmerich (1774-1824).
When the film was released last spring, Gibson's Braveheart sensibility, imposed on the memory of Jesus, was what disturbed, but now the question moves to the huge population of those who affirm that sensibility as their own. This is the background for the extremely worrying event last week, when, at Vatican ceremonies, Sister Emmerich was "beatified," brought to the threshold of sainthood.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/12/2004 8:04:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmmm. If one is seeking to take aim at anti-Semitism, I'd suggest pointing the guns at any of the major newsrags in Europe before Gibson's movie even makes it into the top 5,000.
Also, I can't think of the last mass I attended where the priest blamed the Jooooos for anything.
Anti-semitism is not dead by any stretch, but I can't think of a time or place in history where Christians have been more accepting and supportive of Jews than in today's US of A.
#2
I've never quite got this "Christ-killer" thing.
If I understand the Christian religion correctly, Jesus had to die to save other people from their sins. (A discussion of that concept is best left for another day - or century.) I've never heard anyone saying he was supposed to commit suicide, or die of old age or in a chariot wreck (and since he could walk on water a sinking boat wouldn't have done the trick), so it looks like he had to be killed by someone.
So shouldn't Christians thank the Jews for Jesus' death? Without it, they wouldn't even have a religion.
On the other hand, if they want to blame and hate the people who killed Jesus, shouldn't they blame and hate the Italians? After all, the Italians (Romans) were in charge; they did the killing. Pontius Pilate said he couldn't find that Jesus had done anything wrong, but agreed to kill him anyway. That to me is more egregious than what the temple priests did.
Just wondering, 's all.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/12/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This guy's history is seriously mucked up: Anti-semitism could NOT possibly be an "original sin" of a religion that was started by a Jew, propagated by Jews, and dominated by Jews for many decades. Anti-semitism was an infection the Church picked up from the afflicted Romans as it gained converts. It WAS a sin to not hit down harder on it, but it was hardly "original".
#4
Carrol is a Catholic, and the RC church and its heritage IS his issue, not fundie Protestantism. And Gibson, BTW, is also RC, and his position with relation to Jews has to be seen in relation to the the RCC and particularly the pre_Vatican 2 RCC, despite Gibsons widespread support from evangelicals.
Note Carrol says "potentially lethal" - hes not hunting post film pogroms, but looking at broader issues.
Im told Carrol may NOT be top notch as a historian, but he raises important issues, IMHO.
As for whether the jewish origin of christianity innoculates against antisemitism, I think thats more complex than Ptah makes out. Theres plenty of disdain for non-Christian Jews and for Judaism from the gospel authors, and from Paul, despite their being Jews by birth, and perhaps even continuing to see themselves as Jews. Certainly theres no shortage of antisemitism from later converts to Christianity. Not all antisemitism is racial. In fact pre-1900 hardly any was (with the possible, disputed case of Spanish persecution of conversos)
Though id say this is not a priority right now. Christian antisemitism right now is a theoretical concern, for the most part (and is fought hard by many Christians, including Catholics AND evangelicals). Jihadi-Salafi extremism OTOH is an immminent threat to us all, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist and Secularist.
#5
I think the original Christian problem with the Jews had less to do with the crucifixion than with the confusion over how the Christ could be a Jew yet the Jews didn't become Christians enmass.
Sort of the "you don't want to join our club, well screw you!" angle on theology. I think a lot of Jew hatred can also be traced to the fact that the Jews don't go around trying to convert people. "Hey, do they think they're too good for me? Screw them!" It's all wrapped into the same big hairball and it will probably never actually be solved as long as idiots need someone to blame for their own self-inflicted problems.
#6
Oh please...passion plays have been going on for the last 500 years without any butchering of Jews. Every Good Friday, Catholics reenact the passion of Jesus and I don't every remember going out to commit a Krystalnocht. The Holocaust was perpetrated by a bunch of pagans and fought by Christians of all stripes, including my father (a devote Catholic). Pope Pius XII was credited, by Italian Jews, in personally saving 300,000 Jews by letting them stay in Vatican controlled facilities. Anybody who saw Gibsonâs movie and saw anti anything (other than anti sin) should really see a shrink. Youâve got problems with transference.
Posted by: John Simmins ||
10/12/2004 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Carroll is a "former" priest who now is married and attends the same church as JF Kerry. He finds Kerry's Catholocism just dandy and feels Kerry's misunderstood and a victim of the Republicans. Anything from Carroll needs more salt than all of Debka's articles put together.
#8
No, John, Passion Plays have been going on for at least a millenium, with the audience/congregation coming roaring out afterwards to kill all the Jews they could find. That's why the Jewish leadership in this country was so very nervous about Gibson's film. And, to be sure, early indications (violently anti-semitic phone messages, letters and e-mails) supported their concerns. Fortunately, Christians with Ptah's sensibility predominate here.
#9
John, TW is absolutely correct. Historically, when problems have arisen in Christendom and the powers that be have needed to take the populace's mind off them, Jews have been the destraction of choice. Had it not been the crucifiction of Jesus, another excuse would have been found. The sensibility expressed by Ptah and LH is of relatively recent origin. I'll wait several hundred years before I believe Christians have put this behind them.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 17:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The foreign versions of Gibson's Passion restored a blatantly anti-jewish scene that Gibson cut from the US version. Hitch's account:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323/ Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like.
Wonder how it's subtitled in Egypt and Syria? Or Russia and Poland?
#11
I posted this for comment, and am glad to see it forthcoming. I have not seen the movie, and feel no need to do so. I make no assumption that catholics are either more or less prejudiced against jews than anyone else. I think that is a personal individual mind set. My reason for putting this up is specificly directed against the top level hierarchy of the church itself, which I personally think is one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of the earth. These are the same people who recently gave cardinal Law control of one of the six most important churches in Rome.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/12/2004 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This is the background for the extremely worrying event last week, when, at Vatican ceremonies, Sister Emmerich was "beatified," brought to the threshold of sainthood.
It's only "worrying" if you're a Jew. The Catholic Church has a pretty dismal track record when it comes to "worrying" about the Jews. This only provides additional proof of that.
More explicitly, why is the Vatican, in honoring this nun, affirming some of the most un-Christian aspects of the Gibson film?
Waning popularity and the need to have another go at their traditional scapegoat? It's difficult to see why else the Vatican would nail their smile to Gibson's mainmast.
Indeed, how can this beatification not be taken as a kind of post-facto imprimatur for "The Passion of the Christ?"
It can't. The delay is merely a feeble attempt at plausible deniability.
And given Gibsonâs open disregard for Vatican II, with its firm repudiation of the "Christ-killer" charge, how can the church embrace this rejection of one of its own most important contemporary teachings?
I sincerely doubt that the Vatican's about to give anyone a straight answer regarding this vital question.
Ignoring the potentially lethal consequences of such visions, are the leaders of an ever more defensive church attaching themselves to this perverse pop-culture success for their own parochial reasons?
Ummm ... yes. I would wager that they are hoping to sneak under the radar currently focused upon Islam's even more vicious anti-Semitism. All in all, a rather despicably callow move.
This whole sad story suggests that we Christians -- we Catholics -- have barely begun to uproot anti-Semitism from our tradition. And make no mistake, anti-Semitism begins here.
Yes and yes. Witness the lack of vigorous disclousure surrounding Vatican activities during the Holocaust.
Who could have imagined that, returning to square one of the reform, we would have to be insisting again that the "Christ-killer" charge against the Jewish people is a lie?
That would be anyone with sufficient spiritual backbone to resist the insistence upon blind allegiance being commanded by a corrupt religious leadership whose sole intent is retaining it's remnants of pseudo-political power and naught else. True human spiritual uplifting be damned if it interferes with the Catholic Church's goal of supremacy. This is called "spiritual materialism" and represents an absolute death knell for any sort of enlightenment.
George W. Bush pulled himself together sufficiently in St. Louis on Friday night to avoid losing the presidency to John Kerry on debater's points and got down to his foremost task. The Republican president concentrated on imprinting the scarlet letter ''L'' (for liberal) on his Democratic challenger's chest. Whether or not he succeeds may determine who is elected.
It seems like a lifetime since July 1991 when Sen. Kerry declared: ''I'm a liberal, and proud of it.'' Thirteen years later, the L-word is forbidden language for Kerry. He is attempting what only Bill Clinton among recent Democratic candidates has accomplished: covering left-of-center policies with a facade of moderation. Kerry, less skilled than Clinton as a political dancer, is burdened with a 30-year record of nearly unbroken liberal votes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
