|Recently we just celebrated the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate. Perhaps celebration isn't the right word.
As part of this celebration, Yona Metzger, Israel's chief rabbi, wrote in the Jesuit magazine America that in Nostrae Aetate, the Church rejected "the normative view of Jews that had been held thoughout Christendom for many centuries" namely, that "the Jews rejected Christ andwere guilty of the crime of deicide; consequently, they had been rejected by the Creator in favor of the Christians," who were "the new Israel."
Rabbi Metzger went on to say that this attitude of "supercessionism," and "the teaching of contempt" laid the groundwork for centuries of discrimination, persecution and violence against Jews, culminating the in the Shoah, in which one-third of Jewry was murdered."
"This tragedy," the Chief Rabbi of Isreal continues, "impelled a major transformation in Chirstian Teaching toward Jews":
The Holocaust became European Christianity's most terrible source of guilt--of course, not because the murderers were pious or because church leaders had been entirely silent about the laws and actions of the Nazis over the years, but because of the undeniable record of anti-Semitism in the churches' teachings over the centuries. Not only ignorant peasants or monks but also eminent theologians and spiritual teachers had attacked the Jews as the "killers of Christ," as a people now abandoned by God, a race deserveing not its envied wealth but reveng for plots and acts against innocent Chritians.
Not only had the Jews of Rome been forced to live in a ghetto until the pope no longer governed that city . . . but almost everywhere in Europe, Jews had been made to seem strange, sinister and repulisve. A long road of disgraceful preaching was one of the paths across the centuries which led to the Nazis' death camps and in the end, not Judaism but Christianity was discredited.
When it comes to Catholic/Jewish dialogue, this view is the rule, not the exception. In his book A Moral Reckoning: the Role of the Cahtolic Church in the Holocaust and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote,
"For centuries the Catholic Church . . harbored anti-Semitism at its core, as an integral part of its doctrine, its theology and its liturgy."
Nostra Aetate celebrations are not typical of Catholic/Jewish relations. During the Nostra Aetate celebrations, the Jews were being irenic.
The Jewish reaction to the Oberammergau Passion Play is a better indication of the legacy of Nostra Aetate than last year's "celebrations." Jewish organizations had tried to stop performances of the passion play beginning in the 1930s, but they never gained any traction until Nostra Aetate. Rabbi James Rudin of the AJC, who has waged war on Oberammergau for 40 years, mentioned "the positive teachings of the SecondVatican Council in 1965" as his biggest ally. In his book on Oberammergau, James Shapiro claims that Nostra Aetate "the document reversed close to two thousand years of church teaching about the collective responsibility of the Jews for Jesus's death" (p. 75).
Nostra Aetate inaugurated an era of covert cultural warfare
The Jews construed the Vatican II document not so much as the beginning of dialogue as the beginning of covert cultural warfare.
Nostra Aetate was promulgated on October 28, 1965. One year later, in November 1966, Phil Baum, director of the American Jewish Congress' Commission on International Affairs, demanded that the Oberammergau Passion Play purge its script of what the AJC considered anti-Semitism or face a boycott.
In his book on Oberammergau, James Shapiro the AJC boycott would have gotten nowhere without if Nostra Aetate. "Without a dramatic turn in the teachings of the Catholic Church, Jewish protesters would not have had much success in changing the play, boycotts notwithstanding."
The anvil of Vatican II
The thinly-veiled aggression behind Jewish enthusiasm for conciliar documents like NA becomes apparent when Shapiro claims that "it was only after Oberammergau was caught between the anvil of Vatican II and the hammering criticism of Jewish groups that serious changes were grudgingly made." The point Shapiro is making here is that the Bavarians were getting hammered, and they were only getting hammered because of Nostra Aetate. Without that document the Catholics would have been united and could have easily deflected the Jewish blows.
So, as the comedians would say, 40 years after Nostra Aetate, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Catholics can now engage in dialogue with Jews. The bad news is that when they do they learn that the Catholic Church has been one of the most wicked institutions in the all of human history, preaching racial hatred for 2000 years, and being responsible as well for the murder of Jews under Hitler duringWorld War II.
If the Catholic Church is guilty as charged, it is not clear why the Jews would want to engage in dialogue. But that will become clear later on. In the meantime Nostra Aetate gets twisted by the celebratory dialogue into saying what it does not say. Metzger claims that NA "affirmed that the divine covenant with the Jewish people remained unbroken." He also claims that it condemned what he calls "supercessionism," but NA in fact states that "the Church is the new people of God," which in fact means that the old people of God, the old Israel, has been superceded by the Church. As some indication that the Church is the New Israel, and the Judaism cannot fulfill its covenant, NA goes on to say, that "it is the duty of the Church, therefore, in her preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's universal love and the source of all grace."
As to responsibility for Christ's death, NA affirms what the Gospel of John says in 7:1, "the Jews were out to kill him," in an oblique way when it says that "neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time nor Jews today can bechargedwith the crimes committed during his passon." Having studied logic, I take that passage to mean that "some Jews at the time" were guilty of the murder of Christ.
Does this mean that the Beloved Disciple and the Blessed Mother were out to kill Christ? They were Jews, after all, weren't they? Does this mean that the Beloved Disciple and the Blessed Mother cried out "Crucify him"? No, it means that by the end of the gospel the word "Jew" is redefined as a rejecter of Christ, a definition which holds good both for Jew and Christian to this day. So, there is no occult "blood curse" invoked in Matt 27: 26. What the Jews expressed when they cried, "His blood be on us and our children" was rejection of Christ, a rejection which has persisted to this day among the "Jews." That rejection was so vehement and visceral that the Jews who voiced it demanded Christ's death as its ultimate expression.
Similarly, when NA states that "Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture," that statement must be understood in the light of scriptural passages like Paul's letter to the Thesselonians, specifically 2:15-6, which refers to the "Churches of God in Christ which are in Judaea" which have "suffered from the Jews, the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race. . . ."
Tonight I'd like to explore the two pillars of Catholic-Jewish dialogue 40 years after Nostra Aetate: 1) the Catholic Church is intrinsically anti-Semitic and 2) that Catholic anti-Semitism is responsible for the Holocaust.
Let's begin with the Gospel of St. John.
Micha Brumlik says the Gospel is "intrinsically anti-Jewish." As a result, no dialogue is possible.
Taking part in an Evangelical-Jewish dialogue on the Gospel of St. John which was held at the Evangelical Academy of Arnoldshain in Germany in March of 1989, Micha Brumlik, one of the Jewish participants got quickly to the point. How is dialogue possible when the "irreducible Kernel" of the Gospel is "intrinsically anti-Jewish"? (Was aber, wenn dieser harte Kern substantiell judefeindlich ist? Hilft dann noch bibllische Sachkritik weiter? Sackt nicht did ganze christliche Identitaet in sich zusammen, wenn sie derart entkernt wird?) If the Gospel of St. John is what Brumlik claims it is, namely "a embassy of hate," (eine Botschaft des Hasses), then the real issue is not inter-faith dialogue but the identity of Christianity itself. If the Gospel of St. John is normative for Christianity (and it would be hard to see how this is not the case), then Christianity is a religion of hate, and there is no point in engaging in dialogue with its adherents. Brumlik engages in the dialogue after all but only to denounce the foundational writings of Christianity as hate speech. In the Gospel of St. John, he writes,
the message that is supposed to lead the people by way of faith and the Son to the Father, is in reality a message of maginalization, fear, anxiety and hate. There is no other scripture in the New Testament, in which Christianity more fully achieves its non-Jewish identity, and there is no other scripture in which the marginalization of the Jews, and by that I mean Judaism, is achieved in such a sharp, irreconcilable and unbridgeable manner as in the Gospel according to John.
St. John achieves this by portraying Jews at all levels "both in the form of the spontaneous Mob as well as in the form of the political religious leadership" as "murderers, assassins and killers." Even the Jews who believed in Jesus (Brumlik is referring to the perennially problematic passage in John 8:33)— "insofar as they wanted to remain Jews" have to hear themselves denounced as "children of the Devil."
Brumlik contradicts himself by calling the Gospel of St. John "proto-racist." We see here an example of the ambiguity surrounding the term "anti-Semitism," a term which the Jews are never going to clear up.
The heart of the matter, as far as Brumlik is concerned, lies in Chapter 8 of the Gospel of St. John, a document, which he sees as "proto-racist" and manifesting "politically and socio-psychologically explainable delusions" which are then tied together in a "consistent Satanology" which demonizes the Jews and gives them "no chance." According to Brumlik's reading, St. John portrays the Jews "as a group of people, who don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God because they are ontologically and constitutionally incapable of recognizing him as such. This is part and parcel, according this view, of the satanic nature of the Jews. They can't recognize him and so they must persecute him: "Why don't you understand what I am saying? Because you can't hear my word. The Devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer form the star and was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all.'"
Jew, however, is not a racial term in the Gospel of St. John. it is a religious term.
In fact, Jesus goes out of his way to reject Jewish racism and any racial understanding of the term Jew in one of his confrontations with the Jews.
When the Jews tell Jesus in John 8, that they are the "seed of Abraham," in Greek "sperma Abraam," he changes the term of the argument by replying "If you were Abraham's children," you would do as Abraham did," which is to say they would accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah. Since the Jews reject Jesus, they reject their Father Abraham as well, and show that "the devil is your father."
Once Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, Jew is no longer a racial term because the Jews have to either accept him or reject him as the Messiah. The Jews who accept Jesus are now known as Christians. The Jews who reject him are known henceforth as "Jews." Or as St. John says in the Apocalypse, "those who call themselves Jews" are really "liars" and should be known henceforth as the "synagogue of Satan."
This redefinition of the word Jew becomes even more apparent in the story of the man born blind in John 9. That man's parents, we are told, refused to answer any questions about Jesus healing their son because they feared the Jews. They "spoke like out of fear of the Jews, who had already agreed to expel from the synagogue anyone who would acknowldge Jesus as theChrist."
But it is obvious that they too were Jews, so what does the term "oi Ioudaoi" mean? It cannont have a racial meaning.
Once again it is worth pointing out that the Gospels are not and cannot be construed as anti-Semitic, because, as Caron points out in his book Qui son les "Juifs" de l'evangile de Jean? (Montreal: Bellarmin, 1997), "Il est clair que l'expression ne vise pas l'ensemble du peuple juif. Jesus et ses diciples, tout comme Jean (le Baptist), sont des Juifs. (p. 18). The term "Jew," again according to Caron, "n'est pas utilisee dans son sens ethnique ou racial" (p. 23). The Gospels cannot be anti-Semitic because the antagonists are both Semites. The Gospels do not espouse hatred of individuals because of their race, and indeed it would be impossible to do so because the Christians portrayed in the Gospels are all Jews. This does not preclude, however, the fact that the Gospels are "anti-Jewish," depending on how one defines the term.
Brumlik helps us here when he says, "Jews, in fact all Jews, insofar as they are Jews—which is to say, insofar as they hold fast to their position as children of Abraham—as essentially damned enemies of Jesus."
Jesus would probably object to this portrayal of the Jews, not because he felt they weren't damned—no one who rejects Christ can be saved—but because Brumlik portrays the Jews as being loyal to or children of Abraham, a contention which Jesus specifically rejects in John 8:37 when he says to the Jews, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did."
The Gospel of St. John is not and cannot be construed as anti-Semitic, but is it, as Brumlik would claim, "judenfeindlich"? Is it anti-Jewish? The answer is yes, the Gospels are anti-Jewish, but not anti-Semitic, because over the course of Jesus' public ministry, as described in the Gospel of St. John, the Jews define themselves as rejectors of Christ.
There is nothing racial in the Chuch's definition of the Jews. The Jews are a theological construct. They get their essentially negative identity through rejection of Christ.
As a result, Brumlik concludes that dialogue between Christians and Jews is not possible if either group takes the Gospel of St. John as its starting point. (Wir koennen—so meine These—mit diesem Buch innerhalb des Dialogs nichts, ueberhaupt nichts anfangen! [p. 20]) There is no possible meeing point here because Jesus is the essence of Christianity, according to this gospel, and that essence is precisely what Jews, insofar as they want to remain Jews, must reject" (My emphasis).
Brumlik, here, inadvertently makes the same point that St. John makes in his gospel. In order to hold onto their "identity," the "Jews" had to reject Christ. That means that the "Jews" (as opposed to the Jews, which is say, the entire ethnic group, some of which accepted Christ as the Messiah) in effect created a new identity for themselves, one that is essentially negative.
The word "Jew" cannot have a racial meaning in the Gospel of St. John.
What then does St. John mean when he refers to "the Jews"? At the end of the day, when St. John uses the words "oi Ioudaioi," he is referring to a group of people who have rejected Christ. The coming of Christ changed Jewish identity forever, something the Jews at his time could comprehend only with difficulty. From this moment in history on, the terms "Israelite" and "Jew" were no longer synonymous, because as Ferdinand Hahn points out in the already cited book by Caron, "les 'vrais Israelites,'" from the Christian perspective "sont precisement ceux et elles qui, comme Nathanael, reconnaissent en Jesus le Messie" (p. 30).
So, let's sum up here. Both Daniel Goldhagen and Mischa Brumlik are right, if we define our terms properly. The Church is not and cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, because the term refers primarily to race and racial hatred.
The Gospel of St. John does not promote hatred. The Church cannot promote racial hatred of Jews because its founder was a part of that racial group. However, the Gospel of St. John makes clear that there is a deep and abiding animus against the Jews who rejected Christ. This Judenfeindlichkeit, if we use Brumlik's word, is part of the essence of Catholicism. The Church is hostile to "Jews" because the Jews have defined themselves as rejecters of Christ.
The Church is Judenfeindlich.How did it express this animosity?Unlike the Jews, who feel that hatred is a virtue, Christians are told to love their enemies.
Why did the Jews reject Christ?
Because he was crucified. They wanted a powerful leader, not a suffering servant. Annas and Caiphas told Christ that if he came down from the cross, they would accept him as the Messiah.
As a result, the Jews who rejected Christ became revolutionaries.
Jews became revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implication of their decision didn't become apparent until 30 years later, when the Jews rebelled against Rome, and Rome retaliated by destroying the Temple. At this point, the Jews had no temple, no priesthood and no sacrifice, and as a result they had no way of fulfilling their covenant. Seeing which way the battle for Jerusalem was going, a rabbi by the name of Jochanan ben Zakkai had himself smuggled outo of Jerusalem in a shroud, and after being recognized by Titus as a friend of Rome was granted the privilege of founding a rabbinical school at Javne.
It is at this moment, 30 some years after the founding of the Church, that modern Judaism, Judaism as we know it, was born as essentially a debating society, because in the absence of a Temple, that was all the Jews could do. The results of these interminable debates became known as the Talmud, which got written down over the next six centuries.
The debating did nothing to eradicate the spirit of revolution from the Jews. In many ways, it intensified it by teaching the Jews to look for a military Messiah.
The Jews got their military Messiah roughly 60 years after the destruction of the Temple, when Simon bar Kokhbar rose up against Rome in 136. The rabbis in Jerusalem, with one exception, recognized bar Kokhbar as the Messiah, and as if to prove that racial Judaism had become meaningless, the Christian Jews were expelled for not recognizing him as the Messiah.
It didn't matter whether your mother was Jewish. The ultimate determinant of Jewishness had become rejection of Christ, and that rejection led inexorably to revolution.
When they rejected Christ Jews became revolutionaries.
Rome crushed the bar Kokhbar rebellion, and an anti-Semitic reaction spread throughout the Middle East. Hadrian set up extermination camps for the men, and so many Jewish women and children were sold into slavery that the bottom fell out of the market. When Jewish revolutionaries rose up and slaughtered 100,000 Greeks on the island of Crete, the Greeks responded by slaying every Jew on the Island and passing a law banning them from ever setting foot on the island again. Not even shipwrecked Jews were allows onto Crete. Similar reactions to Jewish revolutionary behavior happened in Alexandria.
As as result, with the possible exception of Spain under the Goths, Jewish revolutionary activity went dormant for 1000 years.
What followed was the thousand year reign of Christ on earth.
Rome fell in 410. The Edict of Constantine had been issued roughly 100 years before.
In order to understand the Catholic response to the Jews we need to examine a period when Catholics held political power, not when Germany was in the grip of what Pope Benedict has called "a neopagan ideology," otherwise known as Nazism.
The Catholic response to the Jewish problem in Medieval Europe was Sicut Iudeis non . . . , a doctrine codified by Pope Gregory the Great and reiterated by virtually every pope after him.
Bernard of Clairvaux epitomizes the approach to the Jews known as Sicut Judeis non. One of this monks was involved in the pogroms against the Jews that accompanied the Second Crusade. Rudolph refused to obey Bernard until Bernard, risking his own life in the process, confronted Rudolph in Mainz and ordered him back to his monastery.
Jews are carnal and blind, but no one has the right to harm them.
Not even the wonders Jesus performed in the Gospel could overcome their blindness, as Bernard notes:
Not the flight of demons, nor the obedience of the elements, nor life restored to the dead, was able to expel from their minds that bestial stupidity, and more than bestial, which caused them, by a blindness as marvelous as it was miserable, to rush headlong into that crime, so enormous and so horrible, of laying impious hands upon the Lord of Glory.
But in spite of that fact "the Jews are not to be persecuted, killed or even put to flight." because "the Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed all over the world so that by expiating their crime they may be everywhere the living witnesses of our redemption." Bernard is aware that the Jews might complain about being characterized as "ox-like" in their understanding, but to their objections he can only offer the words of scripture, in particular Isaiah, who goes farther than Bernard in terming the Jews ox-like, because where "I put you on a par with the beasts, he puts you beneath them." Jews are likewise blind because "Jewish disbelief is a night, and a night too, is the fleshy or bestial way of life led by Catholics." Those Catholics who engaged in usury "played the Jew" to their co-religionists.
None of this rhetoric was calculated to endear Bernard to the Jews, but none of it was new either. Bernard praised those Christians who "wish to go forth against the Ishmaelites, but he warned them as he warned Rudolph that "whoever touches a Jew so as to lay hands on his life, does something sinful as if he laid hands on Jesus himself." The Jewish chronicler Ephraim bar Jacob mentions in this context Bernard's denunciation of "my disciple, Rudolph." In speaking against the Jews "to exterminate them," Rudolph "has preached only unrighteousness" If, however, the Jews promoted violence against Christians, then Bernard held that it would be right to match force with force in self-defense.
Sicut Judaeis non was the essence of Christian realism and Christian charity in dealing with the Jews. No Christian should harm a Jew, on the one hand. On the other, Christian kings should remember that Jews should therefore be kept out of positions of cultural influence. Jewish converts are to be accepted "without calumny."
There is nothing racial about the Church's teaching on the Jews. If a Jew who was pursued by a howling mob intent on killing him made it into the church and was baptized, he would walk out of the church and through that same mob unharmed because the Catholics knew that the Jew was a theological construct, and his Jewishness ended the moment he was baptized, when rejection of Christ was transformed into acceptance.
For rougly 1000 years this was the program. Then, as the Bible predicted, after the thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, the beast was unchained. Revolution arrived in Europe 1000 years after the fall of Rome, in 1410 when Jan Huss was excommunicated. As Rabbi Louis Israel Newman says, Jews were involved in every "reform" movement in Europe. The popes called them heresies, but they were in reality revolutioanry movements.
The Hussites and the Jews
Many Jewish commentators have noticed the underlying congruity between Talmudic Judaism and revolution. Heinrich Graetz is one of them. Calling Huss, "a Czech priest" who had "loosened the bonds in which the church had ensnared the minds of men," Graetz goes on to note that
the flames . . fired a multitude in Bohemia, who entered on a life and death struggle with Catholicism. Whenever a party in Christendom opposes itself to the ruling church, it assumes a tinge of the Old Testament, not to say Jewish spirit. The Hussites regarded Catholicism, not unjustly as heathenism, and themselves as Israelites, which must wage holy war against Philistines, Moabites and Ammonites. Church and monasteries were to them the sanctuaries of a dissolute idolatry, temples to Baal and Moloch and groves of Ashtaroth to be consumed with fire and sword (Vol. IV, p. 222, my emphasis).
Huss was accused of conspiring with the Jews, and the accusation would discredit the movement in the eyes of the orthodox from then on. Most of the evidence in this regard comes from Jewish sources. Rabbi Louis Israel Newman claims that the Hussite revolution was "a conspiracy between Hussites, Waldensians and Jews" (p. 437).
Huss and his followers, especially people like Jan Zelivsky, were Judaizers. In Bernard of Clairvaux's words, the Judaizers had abandoned the freedom of the Gospel and returned to the bondage of the law. Protestantism was not progress; it was a reversion to a more primitive state, the Jewish law. Protestants were like the dog in the Psalms. In Bernard of Clairvaux's words, they had returned to "the vomit of Judaism."
Huss was stigmatized as a "Judaizer" for reasons we have already mentioned. His followers were stigmatized as "Jews or worse than Jews," and the Hussite movement was characterized more than once as "Judaism." The charge was based on the Hussite preachers' tendency to portray their cause in figures drawn from the old Testament, but there were other reasons as well. Newman claims that the Hussite reformers had "personal associations with individual Jews and Jewish communities in their country." He also claims that "Jewish groups participate[d] actively and publicly in the rise and spread of the [Hussite] movement" (p. 436).
Peter Chelcicky said that the Devil took over the Hussite movement in the summer of 1420.
In the summer of 1420 Peter Chelcicky tried to understand that trajectory in his book On Spiritual Battle. According to his view, the devil took over the Hussite movement during the winter of 1419-1420 and turned it into what we would call a revolutionary movement based on Old Testament models. "The Devil," according to Chelcicky,
came to them clothed in other garb, in the prophets and the Old Testament, and from these they sought to confect an imminent Day of Judgment, saying that they were angels who had to eliminate all scandals from Christ's Kingdom, and that they were to judge the world. And so they committed many killings and impoverished many people, but they did not judge the world according to their works for the predicted time has elapsed with which they terrified the people, telling them strange things which they collected from many prophets. (my emphasis).
Another word for Judaizing is Messianic politics or revolution
"At some point during the winter of 1419-1420, the congregations degenerated morally to the point where their reaction to persecution in the winter of 1419-20, was not the Christian suffering of the New Testament but the self-conscious violence of the Old. "
On April 8, 1420, we are told, the Jews worked side by side with the Hussites in digging the trench opposite Vysehrad Castle, and both sang hymns composed by Rabbi Avigdor ben Isaac Kara as they worked. Similarly, the Hussites found encouragement for their iconoclasm from the Jews who sang
The mystery of faith is nowhere found
Except among the Hebrews,
Forbidden altars shall lie upon the ground.
Revolution meant a return to the vomit of Judaism. Judaizing Protestantism became the vehicle of Revolution—Huss, Muentzer, Bokelzoon, Cromwell— up to 1666,
1666 was a crucial year for two reasons:
1) end of Protestantism as the vehicle for Revolution. After the death of Cromwell, Freemasonry took its place as the vehicle for revolution
2) 1666 was the year when the Jews got one more Messiah. His name was Shabbetai Zevi, and he was proclaimed the Messiah by every synagogue in Europe. In January 1666 he sailed to Constantinople to take the crown from the Sultan's head. After a long sea voyage, Sevi was thrown in jail andthe sultan gave him a choice: convert to Islam or die. And so at that point the Jewish Messiah became a Muslim, and delivered to the Jews their greatest catastrophe since the destruction of the Temple.
European Jewry went into a deep state of shock for the next 200 years, retreating to the Shtetl's of Poland, which held 85 % of the wold's Jews.
After the third partition of Poland in 1796 the Poles bequeathed their Jewish problem to Russia, which now had 50 percent of the world's Jews living on its crucial border with the West.
Napoleon embodied the Revolution. Napoleon was hailed as the Messiah by the Jews of Eastern Europe
In his history of the Jews, Chaim Potok tells us that after "Napoleon invaded Russia in June 1812 with an army of five hundred thousand men. Ecstatic eastern European Jews hailed him as the Messiah, hung his portait on the walls of their homes, and helped privison his armies."
The Enlightenment awoke the slumbering Shtetls of the Pale of the Settlement. Jews had been dormant since the catastrophic conversion of their Messiah to Islam.
According to Barbara Tuchman,
The process begins with the "Enlightenment" initiated by Moses Mendelssohn in 18th century German, which shattered the protective shell of orthodoxy and opened the way to acquaintance with Western cutlure and particpation in Western affairs. The reign of the Talmud and the rabbis was broken. All over Europe the shattered windows were flying open. Jews read Voltaire and Rousseau, Goethe and Kant. The reform movement followed, shedding the old rituals, trying to adjust Judaism to the modern world. Civil Emanciapation became the goal. In 1791 the French Constituent Assembly had decreed citizenship for the Jews; Napoleon confirmed it wherever he had dominions. Reaction rescinded it, and therafter it had to be fought for separtely in each country. Civil Emancipation was won around the middle ofthe 19th century, and if it had been a success, Judaism would have ended there. But it was not; and in the process of discovering why not, the Jews discovered nationalism. They became aware that Judaism was dying; on the one hand petrifying into adry husk of rabinnical mumbo jumbo, and othe other dissolving in the open air of Western "enlightenment."
Shattering the protective shell of orthodoxy in the pale of the settlement was like splitting the atom. It released enormous amounts of destructive energy.
Now Russian Jews became the driving force behind the Revolutionary Movement.
To ignore the Jewish contribution to this vision is "short-sighted," according to Haberer, because it
prevents us from comprehending the mental processes which drove alienated men and existentially troubled individuals like Vittenberg to sanctify socialism and to commit themselves to terrorism. For Vittenberg, Jesus Christ was one of the prophets—a Judaic as much as a Christian Messiah. For him they merged in a vision of a personal mission to redeem humanity—and the utopia of salvation through socialism. (Haberer, pp 155-6).
Socialism was, in other words, a political movement with deep roots in secular Messianic Jewish thought. As a result Jews began to play a major role in socialist, and, therefore, revolutionary and terrorist activity in Russia at around the middle of the 19th century :
"Jews," according to Haberer, "were indeed attracted to revolutionary activity—and terror in particular—due to specific Jewish circumstances."
The revolutionary movement in Russia attracted large number of Jews from predominantly Jewish areas because of the philosophical and political and religious reasons we have already mentioned, but they became prominent in the movement primarily because of their skills. Because they lived in the Pale of the Settlement on the western border of the Russian empire, Jews had close contact with Jews in the easternmost parts of both Prussia, including cities like Berlin, and the Austro-Hungarian empire. They were as a result already involved in the exchange of information and goods, often by way of smuggling, and as a result adept at running printing presses and forging passports and other essential documents.
Jews were not only more proficient with the new technologies than the average Russian revolutionary, they were also more willing to support terrorism than Gentile revolutionaries. At one of their congresses,
disagreements over terrorism caused a split between Jewish and Gentile delegates, with the latter opposing terrorism as injurious to the cause of socialist propaganda, and the former arguing for "the systematic and uninterrupted repetition of terrorist acts" as the only means to destroy tsarism. Orzhikh and Shternberg were the most outspoken exponents of this position, which rested on the revolutionary Jews' general commitment to political rather than socialist objectives. (Haberer, p. 247).
In his history of the Jews in Russia, Dvesti let vmeste, Alexander Solzhnitzyn claims that the Jews dominated all of the revolutioanry parties in Russia. There were more Jews among the Mensheviks and the Social Democrats than there were among the Bolsheviks. He also claims that once the Reds triumphed in the civil war following the revolution of 1917, Jews flooded into Moscow and Leningrad, where they formsed the backbone of the new communist regime.
The result was the rise of anti-Semtism in the Soviet Union. If a Russian was arrested by the Cheka he was most probably going to be interrogated, tortured or executed by a Jew.
The revolution then spread to Hungary, where participation of Jews under the leadership of Bela Kun, or Cohn, was even higher and their behavior even more brutal.
And then the revolution spread to Bavaria. Kurt Eisner created the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919. The second revolutionary government was led by Eugene Levine, a Russian Jew.
Which brings us back to the Catholic Church and the man whom the Jews now routinely refer to as "Hitler's pope." Eugenio Pacelli was nuncio to Germany living in Munich and experienced the revolution there first hand.
When a revolutionary put a gun to his head, Pacelli, exhibiting incredible sang froid said, "It is never a good idea to kill a diplomat." At that point they decided to steal his car instead.
When Pacelli went to the revolutionary government's headquarters at the Wittelsbach palace, he noticed that there were no Bavarians running the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. It was being run by Russian Jews.
Pacelli was not alone in feeling that Russian Jews were spreading revolution across Europe.
Virtually everyone writing on the topic of revolution in the 1920s saw Bolshevism as a Jewish phenomenon. The full story comes out in Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein's book Juedischer Bolschewismus, another book that has not been translated into English:
Winston Churchill expressed his fears in an article in the Illustrated London News in 1919.
In May of 1919 ,Woodrow Wilson—no isolationist he!— proclaimed that the Bolshevik movement was "led by Jews." In 1919, Arnold Zweig, who like Arthur Koestler was both a Zionist and a Communist wrote, that "Jewish blood" gave birth to socialism "from Moses to Lindauer." In his magnum opus Das Prinzip Hoffnung, the Jew Ernst Bloch said the same thing in even pithier form when he wrote, in a parody of the Roman saying, "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia," "Ubi Lenin, Ibi Jerusalem." Elie Wiesel wrote that, "We have to make revolution, because God told us to. God wants us to become communists." In 1848, Adolf Jellinek wrote that "reactionaries denounce Jews as the perpetuum mobile of the revolution." In his book, Der grosse Basar, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, one of the leaders of the '68 Revolution, referred to Trotsky as "embodying the essence of the Talmudic Jew." In 1934, in his book, Katholizismus und Judentum, Bela Bangha, the Hungarian Jesuit wrote that "revolutionary Marxism" corresponded "in its essence to a particular form of the Jewish soul and his intellectual posture." On December 14, 1918, the American Literary Digest asked the question, "Are Bolshewiki mainly Jewish?" Two years later, on June 19, 1920, under the title of "The Jewish Peril," the Christian Science Monitor referred to an alleged world-wide Jewish conspiracy as demonstrated by the newly discovered Protocols of the Elders of Zion. On the very same day, the Chicago Tribune referred to Bolshevism as "an instrument for Jewish control of the world."
Jews said the same thing
In 1921 A. Sachs wrote that, "Jewish Bolshevism has demonstrated to the entire world that the Jewish race is not suffering from degeneracy." In 1990 in his book Stalin's War against the Jews, Louis Rapoport wrote that "men of Jewish heritage," laid "the foundation for Communism and Socialism." Franz Werfel, the man who wrote The Song of Bernadette, and who took part in the communist insurrection in Vienna in 1919, wrote an article entitled "Israel's Gift to Mankind," in which he said that "Moses Hess, Karl Marx and Ferdinand Lassalle" were the "church fathers of Socialism." Jacob Toury claimed that socialism grew out of traditional Judaism among the uprooted as substitute religion. In an article entitled "The Jewish Revolutionary," which appeared in the Neue Juedischen Montsheften toward the end of 1919, the author stated that "no matter how the issue is exaggerated by the anti-Semitic side and no matter how anxiously it is denied by the Jewish bourgeoisie, the huge Jewish participation in the contemporary revolutionary movement is a simple fact." One year later, Franz Kafka, the famous German-speaking Jew from Prague, wrote, "You don't forgive the Jewish socialist and communists. You drown them in the soup and slice them up when you're roasting them." ("Den juedischen Sozialisten und Kommunisten verzeiht man nichts, die ertraenkt man in der Suppe und zerschneidet man beim Braten.")
Polish Nobel laureate, Isaac B. Singer, who spoke Polish only with difficulty and won the Nobel Prize in literature for writing in Yiddish, claimed that "the communists in Warsaw war almost exclusively Jews, and that they brought fire and sword to all parties. They also claimed [after the October revolution] that social justice could only be found in Russia." Bundespresident Friedrich Ebert claimed that Jews were the people responsible for the revolution in Germany and that "practically every Jew was a crypto-Bolshevik." In 1904, the German Zionist Franz Oppenheimer remarked that "nothing is more certain that that the contemporary Jew in eastern Europe is a born revolutionary." What followed from this all but universal recognition of Jewish participation in Bolshevism was an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism. What made a racist organization like the Thule society a dangerous threat was precisely the widespread consensus that "there was no such thing as Bolshevism without Jews."
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was bad enough, but it had nowhere near the psychological effect on public opinion that its daughter revolutions—the short-lived soviet republics of Bavaria and Hungary—had on the populations of eastern Europe. Bela Kun did for the Jews in Hungary what Kurt Eisner did for the Jews of Germany; both men created a huge wave of anti-Semitism in their respective countries.
The same was true of Austria, where the dramatist Arthur Schnitzler in his diary described the revolutionaries as "a mixture of literary Jewboys, plundering rabble, and idiots." The revolution in Hungary made headlines around the world. The net result was a rise in anti-Semitism, and not just in Hungary. In his book on the holocaust in Hungary, Rudolph Braham claimed that the "chiliastic passions" that promoted world revolution led inexorably to counter-revolution, and that the short but brutal communist regime left behind a bitter legacy which had devastating consequences for Hungarian Jews.
The Catholic Church in general and the Jesuits in particular were the main opponents of the revolutionary movement in the period leading up to and following World War I.
As such, the Catholics were prominent—at this point in time, at least—in pointing out the large Jewish participation in the revolutionary movement. In an article which appeared in the October 21, 1922 issue of the officially recognized Vatican journal La Civilta Cattolica entitled "La rivoluzione mondia e gli ebrei," (World Revolution and the Jews), Communism was described as "the perversion of a Semitic fantasy" emanating "from the Jewish race." In his 1926 book Judentum und Christentum, Father Erich Pryzwara, SJ, used quotes from Martin Buber and other Jewish thinkers to trace socialism back to its roots in Jewish messianism, forcing him to the melancholy conclusion that the Jew "is driven to become the tireless revolutionary of the Christian world by an inner necessity." In the final analysis, the Jew is "driven to his tireless activism by his deepest religious convictions. He is truly the restless Ahasver."
In similar fashion, the Polish bishops traced the Bolshevik fury that had been unleashed on eastern Europe in the wake of World War I back to the "tradtional hatred" which Jews had always felt for Christendom. During Poland's war with the nascent Soviet Union in 1920, the Polish bishops released a pastoral letter in which they announced that "the true goal of Bolshevism is world conquest. The race which has the leadership of Bolshevism in its hands . .. is bent on the subjugation of the nations . . . especially, because those who are the leaders of Bolshevism have the tradtional hatred toward Christendom in their blood. Bolshevism is in reality the embodiment and incarnation of the Antichrist on earth." Like the Communist Parties in Germany and Hungary, the Communist Party in Poland was overwhelmingly Jewish. Sixty-five percent of the Communists in Warsaw were Jews. In the 1920s, the percentage was even higher, which again fueled anti-Semitism.
Cardinal Hlond, the primate of Poland, has been called an anti-Semite, yet when he issued his pastoral letter on morals on February 29, 1936, he was articulating not racial hatred but Sicut Iudeis non . . .
One of the classic instances which we are given of "modern" anti-Semitism is the pastoral letter on morals which was issued by Cardinal Hlond, the primate of Poland, on February 29, 1936. The part beginning "It is true that Jews . . . have a corruptive influence on morals, and that their publishing houses are spreading pornography . . ." is invariably quoted as proof of Hlond's anti-Semitism, but no mention is made of what follows. Hlond's pastoral letter is a classic instance of the two part teaching on the Jews that goes by the name of "Sicut Iudeis non . . ." I will now quote the statement in full.
So long as Jews remain Jews, a Jewish problem exists and will continue to exist. This question varies in intensity and degree from country to country. It is especially difficult in our country, and ought to be the object of serious consideration. I shall touch briefly here on its moral aspects in connection with the situation today.
It is a fact that Jews are waging war against the Catholic Church, that they are steeped in free-thinking and constitute the vanguard of atheism, the Bolshevik movement, and revolutionary activity. It is a fact that Jews have a corruptive influence on morals, and that their publishing houses are spreading pornography. It is true that Jews are perpetrating fraud, practicing usury, and dealing in prostitution. It is true that, from a religious and ethical point of view, Jewish youth are having a negative influence on the Catholic youth in our schools. But let us be fair. Not all Jews are this way. There are very many Jews who are believers, honest, just, kind, and philantropic. There is a healthy, edifying sense of family in very many Jewish homes. We know Jews who are ethically outstanding, noble, and upright.
I warn against that moral stance, imported from abroad [he is clearly thinking of Germany] that is basically and ruthlessly anti-Jewish. It is contrary to Catholic ethics. One may love one's own nation more, but one may not hate anyone. Not even Jews. It is good to prefer your own kind when shopping, to avoid Jewish stores and Jewish stalls in the marketplace, but it is forbidden to demolish a Jewish store, damage their merchandise, break windows, or throw things at their homes. One should stay away from the harmful moral influence of Jews, keep away from their anti-Christian culture, and especially boycott the Jewish press and demoralizing Jewish publications. But it is forbidden to assault, beat up, maim, or slander Jews. One should honor Jews as human beings and neighbors, even though we do not honor the indescribable tragedy of that nation, which was the guardian of the idea of the Messiah and from which was born the Savior. When divine mercy enlightens a Jew to sincerely accept his and our Messiah, let us greet him into our Christian ranks with joy.
Beware of those who are inciting anti-Jewish violence. They are serving a bad cause. Do you know who is giving the orders? Do you know who is intent on these riots? No good comes from these rash actions. And it is Polish blood that is sometimes being shed at them. (Modras 346-7).
Cardinal Hlond was not expressing racial hatred here, he was warning his Polish flock about the dangers of Bolshevism, which, as all of Europe had learned during the 1920s, was an essentially Jewish movement.
Cardinal Hlond was opposing Jewish revolutionary activity on the one hand, but he was also opposing the inordinate reaction to Jewish revolutionary activity that was known as Nazism and had taken over Germany at that time. The Church was consistent in its oppostion to revolution on the one hand, and in defending the Jews against physical harm on the other. Both parts of this teaching are necessary. If either one is ignored, trouble follows.
So the chruch had nothting to do with the rise of moder anti-Semism. The main source of anti-Semitism is Jewsi behavor. Modern anti-Semitism was a reaction to Jewish bolshevis. What goes by the name of the Holocaust was the reaction to Jewish boslhevies. The main soruce of anti-Semtism is Jewsi behavor , not th teaching of theCatholic Chruch. Because the Jew is a theological constuct, Jewish revolutionary movements like Bolshevism andNeoconservatism can only be defeated by spirual weapons ofthe sort proposed by Cardinal Hlond.
6 padziernik 2006
Dr Mike Jones
styczeń 10, 2003
grudzień 21, 2006
grudzień 26, 2004
|"Fundusze strukturalne Unii Europejskiej"
kwiecień 26, 2003
|(NFI) Jupiter świeci brudnym światłem
lipiec 30, 2002
|Ochrona zdrowia Narodu
padziernik 18, 2008
|Kretynizm po krakowsku - "opłata klimatyczna"
luty 23, 2004
grudzień 27, 2003
grudzień 10, 2007
|Chyba, że zdarzy się cud (refleksja powyborcza)
padziernik 11, 2005
luty 25, 2005
maj 4, 2006
|2008.02.23. Serwis wiadomości zagranicznych w 3ch językach
luty 25, 2008
| Antyfaszysta roku 2003 aresztowany!
styczeń 4, 2007
|Gesty - niby nic wielkiego, a jednak...
maj 15, 2005
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|Mieszkam prawie 27 lat w Australii prowdze wlasny biznes
grudzień 13, 2006
Urzędnicy, czy rzezimieszki?
sierpień 16, 2004
|Przez Globalizację do Globalnego Imperium
grudzień 17, 2004
|Belka zadowolony z obniżki stóp
czerwiec 27, 2002
|Francesco Cossiga i zamach na World Trade Center
styczeń 17, 2008