‘Drip feed’ of anti-Judaism from Catholic pulpits has to stop
Teresa Pirola, ThD, is a Sydney-based freelance writer and Catholic faith educator.
[s2If current_user_can(access_s2member_level2)]
Micro-messages that perpetuate anti-Jewish stereotypes emanate from many (not all) Catholic pulpits on any given Sunday. This article explores this claim and argues that, while the remedy may be simple, the habit is hard to break.
I will speak as a Catholic. Not because the problem is confined to these Christian circles, but because that is the community I know best, having been immersed and active in the Catholic community all my adult life.
What is an ‘anti-Jewish micro-message’? I use the term to refer to those moments when a homilist utters a small, subtle, seemingly innocuous comment about a Jewish character or event in the readings of the day, with the resulting overall homiletic effect of presenting Judaism in a negative light.
A typical example, in an otherwise well-articulated homily, might be something like this:
‘In today’s Gospel, Jesus shows up the hypocrisy and legalism of the Pharisees…’; or
‘Unlike the “bad shepherds” of Israel, Jesus is the Good Shepherd…’; or
‘The Jewish leaders conspired with the Romans to have Jesus crucified.’
What’s wrong with that, you ask? After all, when we read each relevant scripture passage, it would appear that Jesus does challenge some Pharisees; there are some bad shepherds in the biblical memory of Israel; and a certain small group of Jewish authority figures do get involved in Jesus’ demise.
Further, presumably the homilist has no anti-Semitic intent. And he isn’t commenting on Judaism per se. In fact, in the first quote above he hasn’t mentioned the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Israel’. What’s the problem here? Besides, it’s just one sentence, which half the congregation probably didn’t pay attention to anyway, and for the other half that did, it wouldn’t necessarily have registered as being anti-Jewish. Again, what’s the big deal?
I will leave aside, for another discussion, the exegetical complexities of engaging with the text: such as the distinction between the theological intention of the author and the historical evidence; the tumultuous socio-political context that framed the development of the Gospels; and the precise meaning of references to ‘the Pharisees’ and ‘the Jews’. The point I wish to highlight here is that micro-messages such as these typically arise as the only time that Judaism is mentioned in the homily. During the 10-20 minute presentation from the pulpit, the one moment when congregational ears are pricked to register ‘Jew’, the sole occasion when the homilist draws explicit attention to ‘Judaism’ or ‘Israel’, is a negative frame of reference: hypocrisy, legalism, bad, conspiratorial.
Even where a negative reference can be justified by the homiletic context, the problem is that there is no counter-balancing positive reference associated with ‘Jew’, ‘Judaism’ or ‘Israel’. No mention that Jesus himself lived and died as a faithful Jew; that he shared certain Pharisaic beliefs and forms of piety; that Scripture also mentions Pharisees who welcome Jesus to their table and who protectively alert him to pending trouble; and that some of the greatest figures in the story of Israel are depicted as shepherds.
Rather, on a given Sunday, parishioners hear the ‘Pharisees’ (who we all know to be Jews) linked with ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘legalism’; on another Sunday, they hear ‘Israel’ linked to ‘bad shepherds’; on still another Sunday, ‘the Jewish leaders’ are highlighted as ‘opponents of Jesus’, and so on. Herein lies the problem: week by week, comment by comment, the Jew and the Jewish tradition are linked to that which is unethical or disreputable and therefore the contrast to Jesus and Christianity.
It is subtle, almost subliminal. Yet the impact is infectious and poisonous, especially when one considers that this pattern of negativity has a sobering historical backdrop: many centuries of Christian antagonism towards the Jewish people, described as the ‘teaching of contempt’. While never formally adopted as church teaching, a strain of anti-Jewish sentiment crept into Christian theology and catechesis at least as early as the patristic era. In the centuries that followed, what had begun as theological arguments directed against Judaism mutated into anti-Semitic defamation, leading beyond distorted preaching to outright persecution of Jews at the hands of Christian societies. It wasn’t until twenty years after the diabolical tragedy of the Holocaust that the Catholic Church, at the Second Vatican Council, decisively condemned antisemitism, effectively repudiated the ‘teaching of contempt’ and re-set its theological compass so as to commit to a new era of respect for and reconciliation with the Jewish people.
Vatican II represents a ground-breaking achievement in the history of Jewish-Christian relations. However, reception of the Council takes time. It is not possible to heal a 2000-year-old wound in just 60 years of ecclesial renewal. Thus, even today, many parish congregations unquestioningly absorb micro-messages that portray Judaism in terms of inferiority and negativity, when in fact what they need in their theological and pastoral formation is a drip feed of positive messaging to reinforce the gains of Vatican II: messages that affirm Jesus as a faithful Jew; the Jewish roots of Christianity; the Church’s permanent link to the mystery of Israel; the gift of the Jewish Scriptures, upon which the New Testament depends for its foundations; the gratitude owed to Judaism for introducing ethical monotheism to the world; and Jewish covenantal life as a living, enduring reality, to name a few.
Consider, for example, this statement of Pope Benedict XVI:
Jesus, a son of the Chosen People, was born, lived and died a Jew (cf. Rom 9:4-5). Mary, his Mother, likewise invites us to rediscover the Jewish roots of Christianity. These close bonds are a unique treasure of which Christians are proud and for which they are indebted to the Chosen People. (Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 20)
Or this statement of Pope Francis during his visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome in 2016:
From a theological point of view, it is clear there is an inseparable bond between Christians and Jews. Christians, to be able to understand themselves, cannot not refer to their Jewish roots, and the Church, while professing salvation through faith in Christ, recognizes the irrevocability of the Covenant and God’s constant and faithful love for Israel.
These statements communicate esteem for Judaism – respect for its ancient story and its vitality as a living tradition – as well as gratitude for the inextricable closeness of the relationship between the two traditions. They model the fruits of the Council and have the potential to shape stock homiletic expressions:
‘Today’s first reading anchors our Christian faith in the time-honoured story of God’s people, Israel…’
‘This ancient psalm, which remains part of the vitality of Jewish prayer today and continues to be prayed in Jewish synagogues, expresses….’
Jesus, of course, teaches as a Jew. His message, drawing deeply from Torah, challenges us to…’
As you can see, framing a brief positive statement is not rocket science. Once we are aware of the problem of drip-feed negativity, it is relatively simple to include a positive message about Judaism in a homily that shows respect for present-day Jews and does justice to contemporary Catholic teaching. What is difficult is breaking an old habit. And that takes education, which requires time and focused energy not always available to time-strapped parish priests who cannot instantly be across every pressing issue of theology and justice. Thus, including a topic such as “Preaching without unintended anti-Judaism” on the agenda of a clergy conference could be a practical help to homilists.
To sum up, anti-Jewish micro-messaging persists in Catholic parishes in our time. Multiply this tendency over months and years of preaching, in parishes across the country and the globe, and we have what should be unthinkable: a constant drip feed of subtle, unintended anti-Judaism being digested ‘intravenously’ by church-going 21st century Catholics.
Fortunately, solutions are within reach. The fruits of 60 years of interfaith dialogue have produced a wealth of scholarship and church documents illuminating the Jewish-Christian relationship within its proper historical and theological context. But there remains a gap between what these documents ‘say’, and the ease with which their insights emanate from pulpits. Missing is an effective facilitation of the flow between the two.
The sooner this need is named and prioritised, the stronger the footing for parish-based progress in Catholic-Jewish relations.
[/s2If]
