Is The Vatican Anti-Semitic Or Tone-Deaf?

Guest writer: Pilgrim.

Introduction

Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Israel and the Vatican have been at odds. Israel has objected to what it sees as the Vatican’s false moral equivalence between terrorist aggression and Israel’s right to self-defence. The Vatican has complained of a “disproportionate” Israeli response which puts innocents at risk and threatens to ignite a wider regional or even global conflagration.

Pope Francis wrote to the Jewish population of Israel in February 2024 condemning all forms of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism:

(The Church) rejects every form of anti-Judaism and antisemitism, unequivocally condemning manifestations of hatred towards Jews and Judaism as a sin against God …

Together with you, we, Catholics, are very concerned about the terrible increase in attacks against Jews around the world. We had hoped that ‘never again’ would be a refrain heard by the new generations.

The Pope noted that wars and divisions are increasing all over the world “in a sort of piecemeal world war,” hitting the lives of many populations.

Pope Francis has also directly condemned Hamas’ attack from Gaza into southern Israel.

In January 2024, in his yearly “State of the World” address to diplomats, Pope Francis directly condemned Hamas’ cross-border attack from Gaza into southern Israel as an “atrocious” act of “terrorism and extremism” and renewed his call for the immediate liberation of those still being held by militants in Gaza. He added, this is “not the way to resolve disputes between peoples; those disputes are only aggravated and cause suffering for everyone.”

The Pope also decried the fact that it “provoked a strong Israeli military response in Gaza that has led to the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, mainly civilians, including many young people and children, and has caused an “exceptionally grave humanitarian crisis and inconceivable suffering.” He called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and access to humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people. He also reiterated his support for a “two-state” solution, as well as an “internationally guaranteed special status for the City of Jerusalem,” aiming for lasting peace and security. Expressing concern that the war between Israel and Hamas could spread in the wider Middle East, he called for a “ceasefire on every front, including Lebanon”.

These differences between Israel and the Vatican are inevitable as Israel prosecutes its war while the Holy See attempts to encourage a “spirit of peace” in the world and remain above the fray, being concerned primarily for the humanitarian fallout for all parties.

No one has explicitly suggested that the Vatican’s rhetoric reflects anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish sentiment, but is rather the consequence of contrasting perspectives and priorities.

That is, until now ….

The Letter

One year after the Hamas attack on Israel Pope Francis has sent a letter to Catholics in the Middle East which has triggered such concerns.

In his letter, Pope Francis described the Catholics of the Middle East as “a small, defenceless flock, thirsty for peace” and thanked them for their desire to remain in their lands, together with their ability “to pray and love in spite of everything.”

“You are a seed loved by God,” said the Pope, who also encouraged them not to allow themselves to be “swallowed up by the darkness that surrounds you.” The Pontiff invited Catholics living in these war zones to be “shoots of hope,” to “bear witness to love in the midst of words of hatred,” and to foster “encounter in the midst of confrontation.”

Pope Francis repeated that “as Christians, we must never tire of imploring God’s peace.” “Prayer and fasting,” the Pontiff explained, “are the weapons of love that change history, the weapons that defeat our only true enemy: the spirit of evil that foments war.”

In addition, the Pope expressed his closeness to all people living in the Middle East, regardless of their religious confession. Francis addresses his affection to “mothers who weep,” to “those who have been forced to leave their homes,” “those who are afraid to look up because of the fire that rains down from heaven,” and “those who thirst for peace and justice.”

The Holy Father thanked the “sons and daughters of peace for consoling the heart of God, wounded by the wickedness of humanity,” for their work. He also thanked the “bishops and priests, who bring God’s consolation to those who feel alone and abandoned.” To them he addresses a request: “look to the holy people whom you are called to serve and let your hearts be moved, putting aside, for the good of your flock, every division and ambition.”

He concluded his message by asking for the intercession of the Virgin Mary, “Queen of Peace” and St. Joseph, “Patron of the Church.”

All well and good ….

Or is it?

A Jewish Perspective

The letter has elicited the same ambivalence from many Israelis and Jews that previous Vatican declarations on the war have. Some noted that Francis never referred to what Oct. 7^th commemorates, i.e., the unprovoked Hamas assault on Israel. Others complained that Francis declared “the people of Gaza” are in his daily thoughts and prayers, saying nothing about the people of Israel. Critics groused too that was ostensibly a letter to the Catholics of the Middle East with no mention of Catholics inside the state of Israel who are also suffering.

These objections are familiar, but there was a new element in this letter which raised special “alarm” amongst some.

Pope Francis decried “the spirit of evil that foments war,” citing John 8:44 to the effect that this spirit is “murderous from the beginning” and “a liar and the father of lies.”

People today do not know how to find peace. As Christians, we must never tire of imploring peace from God. That is why, on this day, I have urged everyone to observe a day of prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting are the weapons of love that change history, the weapons that defeat our one true enemy: the spirit of evil that foments war, because it is “murderous from the beginning”, “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Please, let us devote time to prayer and rediscover the saving power of fasting!

As a Catholic, I read this as a generalized attack on evil as it manifests itself in individuals and nations down the generations. The terms have entered Christian lexicon as a representation of Satan, not the Jews. Indeed, Pope Francis clearly refers to it in the sense of a “spirit of evil that foments war.”

However, some consider John 8:44 to be one of the most problematic passages for Jewish-Christian relations in Scripture. Indeed, there is a campaign to have certain verses removed from the Gospels of John and Matthew. This idea that the New Testament is inherently anti-Semitic emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Certainly, such verses have been abused down the centuries.

In John 8 we read that Jesus was teaching in the Temple Court to people who gathered around Him. Whilst there, the “teachers of the law and the Pharisees” were testing Him, trying to trap Him so they could accuse Him of heresy.

Verses 42 – 46 reads:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Such passages must be read in context. Jesus and His followers were all Jews, so He was not impugning all Jews or Judaism. This was a Jewish dispute centered on salvation resting not on birth but on conversion. These passages were directed at a small, group, openly hostile to Jesus and His radical message; it was aimed at those who were looking to kill Him.

Did Pope Francis invoke a dangerous legacy when he chose John 8:44 to characterize “our one true enemy” in this letter to Middle Eastern Catholics – the enemy being Satan, not the Jews as a people?

Ethan Schwartz, a professor of the Hebrew Bible at Villanova, writing for the Religious News Service, certainly believes so:

It is impossible to overstate what a disaster this is for Jewish-Catholic relations. It recalls the most dangerous rhetoric in Catholic history and threatens the progress made since Vatican II …

If alluding to the idea that Jews are the devil is not antisemitic, then nothing is antisemitic, and there is no limit to what may be done.

He continues, John 8:44 has been used to justify persecution, oppression, and violence against Jews:

As a Jew, I shuddered when I read these words. They triggered an instinctual terror that I have not felt since Oct. 7 itself.

Mortal fear of Catholics has been a common feature of Jewish history, but it’s actually new for me.

He goes on:

It would not be unreasonable to speculate that no individual sentence has caused more Jewish death and suffering than John 8:44. It has fuelled countless persecutions, pogroms and, in its own way, the Holocaust …

In a war that much of the world blames on the Jewish state, citing a verse that condemns all Jews as the murderous children of the devil creates an unavoidable implication: The Jews are the reason for this horror. They are the enemies of those who seek peace – the enemies of the church and, indeed, of humanity itself.

Schwartz overstates his case. He takes the verse out of context. Whilst he acknowledges the passage is “very dense with information and allows for many interpretations and conclusions,” he does little to clear this, concluding:

Such a reading goes beyond discrediting Jews because of their unbelief in Jesus: it argues that (these) Jews, from the beginning, even before the New Testament, were not the real children of God; and not even the actual children of Abraham. This makes the promises of the Tanakh conditional on belief in Jesus. We find a similar rhetoric in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. There, the gathering of Jews who do not believe in Jesus is called “synagogue of Satan,” and they themselves “not Jews,” i.e., Jews who call themselves Jews but are not true children of Abraham and not true children of God.

This is a misrepresentation of both Jesus’ words and of Pope Francis’ message.

Granted, what can happen when such texts are used in contentious debates is seen in seven sermons given by St John Chrysostom in the 4^th century. In his warning to Christians who enjoyed going to Jewish synagogues, Chrysostom warns that going to these synagogues and celebrating holidays with them means “celebrating with demons,” because whoever kills the Son of God can only be a demon. The texts of his sermons mark a demarcation that is not based on ethnicity but on repentance in Christ. What is overlooked is that at the time Jewish leaders were engaged in a bloody quest to eliminate Christians. He was also railing against Judaizing Christians. The language in his commentaries appear to be anti-Semitics. This article helps explains this:

In 386–387 Chrysostom delivered eight Homilies Against the Jews in which he attempted to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. The sermons were prompted by Christians who were attending Jewish synagogues, practicing Jewish fasts and celebrating Jewish ceremonies. Their attraction to Judaism came more from ignorance and superstition than religious faith. Like the book of Hebrews, John argued that Christianity was the fulfilment of all these Old Testament practices.

The institutions of Judaism were obsolete now that the Messiah had come and fulfilled the demands of the Law and the prophets. At times, the sermons sound emotionally violent and anti-Semitic. While it is true that John had strong feelings about Jewish unbelief, in other contexts he was no less sparing in his criticism of false prophets who were morally corrupt. Jewish people, false prophets, and heretics alike were people who should have recognized Jesus as the Messiah. Still, John praised Jewish people for exemplifying diligent obedience to the Law, unlike lazy Christians who hardly practiced their faith.

Many centuries later, Martin Luther used more exaggerated rhetoric in very different circumstances. In his, frankly, unhinged, ‘On the Jews and Their Lies,’ Luther saw in Jesus’ characterization of the Jews as “children of the devil” confirmation that Jews should not live among Christians. He writes, “while yet we treat no one so well, and at the same time suffer from no one so much as from those wicked children of the devil, that brood of vipers.” In this treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools should be set on fire, Jewish prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, Jewish homes burned, and property and money confiscated. Luther demanded that no mercy or kindness be given to Jews, that they be afforded no legal protection, and “these poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labour or expelled forever. He also advocated murder of all Jews, writing “[W]e are at fault in not slaying them.”

The book became popular with the rise of the Nazi Party and the prevailing consensus is that it had a significant impact on justifying the Holocaust to the German public.

Conclusion

Much ado about nothing; anti-Semitism; or a case of tone-deafness?

There is growing ‘scholarly’ and popular support today for the notion that anti-Semitism first arose in the Gospels, particularly St John and St Matthew, is in the Epistles of St Paul, was passed onto the early Church Fathers, was reinforced by the Reformation, and came to full fruition with the German Third Reich.

John Allen, writing in Crux, queries whether the Vatican is indifferent to the “historical ghosts” the pope’s letter has allegedly awoken, saying “there are only two possibilities, and it’s honestly hard to know which is the more troubling.”

Option one is that use of the verse was intentional, a sort of scriptural shot across the bow at Israel and the Jewish world, warning them of rising frustration with Israel’s approach to the war. If so, one must question the judgment involved in using such an historically fraught passage to make the point.

Option two is that the use of John 8:44 was unintentional, a case of whoever prepared a draft for the pope did not know the history of the passage or the reaction it might provoke. If that’s the case, he concludes, it raises troubling questions about the sensitivity level in the Vatican to Jewish-Christian relations, especially given that next year will mark the 60th anniversary of ‘Nostra Aetate,’ the “ground breaking document” of the Second Vatican Council that signalled a shift in the Church’s relationship with Jews and Judaism. Strange in view of Pope Francis’ recent off-the-cuff comment that “all religions are pathways to reach God.”