Paul Hoffer said...
Hmmm.....I am sorry Steve, I don’t see all of the blatant anti-Semitism there that you see. I made an appointment to get my eyes checked though. I will let you know after I get my new prescription glass on Fri. to see if I see things any differently.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/06/tim-staples-says-its-wrong-to-clap-and.html?showComment=1246485524238#c5880252509268461033
Interesting question. The attitude of medieval Christians toward Jews was certainly nothing to be proud of. The indignities and annoyances inflicted by the canons you quote were pretty mild compared top some things you could find. The prevailing attitude was that these folks ought to have known the true religion when they saw it because it could be proved out of their own scriptures. The medievals had trouble understanding that a person with the wrong religion could be in good faith. Also, Jews were allowed to lend money at interest and Christians (at least theoretically) were not. So lots of Christians owed money to Jews and resented the fact. Hence Canon 67.
The anti-Semitism of more recent times seems to me more racial and social, less religious than the medieval Christian attitude toward Jews. There's a lot to be ashamed of in both.
Best
RER [Robert E. Rodes]
http://www.nd.edu/~medinst/faculty/bios/rodes.html
The very short answer to your question is “yes,” the sections of the 4th Lateran Council that you cite are generally taken by historians to represent the anti-Jewish stance of the medieval Church.
The slightly more long-winded, though not full, response is as follows:
The 3rd and 4th Lateran Councils represent the high-water mark of the power and energy of the medieval Papacy. This was the time that a series of dynamic and capable popes sought to standardize and centralize Catholic religious practice and, more generally, enhance papal authority throughout the Latin West. Part of this effort included a renewed dedication to the implementation of a number of rules and policies that had been part of ecclesiastical doctrine for centuries but that had not been regularly (or, in some cases, even minimally) enforced by local bishops, kings, or town councils. The canons you cite need to be read against this general backdrop of centralization and reform.
The idea of separating Jews (and Muslims) from the body of Catholic society has its roots in Roman legislation. One can argue that the antiquity of such “separate and unequal” laws does not erase their underlying anti-Jewishness. The decision to enforce them with vigor, and to reproach those Christians that had heretofore ignored them does seem to signal a change in outlook of the medieval Church. Whether this was a much-needed reform instituted by hardliners, or a destabilizing attack on a society that had built bridges connecting religious communities depends on your stance.
Clearly, the language and the accusations (do they represent fact?) of Jewish “treachery” and “mocking” of Christians are touched with a certain measure of anger and malice. Moreover, the canons give credence to “reports” of Jewish wrongdoing such as anti-Christian taunts during Easter that were non-existent. On the contrary, medieval Jews typically shut themselves securely within their walled Jewish Quarters during Easter week to try and avoid the nearly perennial anti-Jewish violence that the holiday provoked among the Christian masses.
The canons also hint at the underlying and ongoing struggle for power between the Papacy and the various secular lords of medieval Europe. Popes were forever threatening kings and other lords (including bishops) to toe the line or risk retribution. Most kings saw these as empty threats, and refused to bow to papal pressure. England, Portugal Castile and Catalonia-Aragon were notorious in this regard. The Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick II, also locked horns with Pope Innocent IV not long after the promulgation of these canons. The kings were not necessarily friends of the Jews, but they refused to allow the Church to tell them how to govern their subjects. Ironically, nearly all the popes of this era followed royal practice in appointing Jews to positions of power, despite their own prohibitions in this regard.
If you are interested, I deal with the subject in greater depth with regard to Spain in my book The Sephardic Frontier.
Hope this helps.
All best,
JR
Jonathan Ray
Samuel Eig Assist. Professor of Jewish Studies
Georgetown University
[Jonathan Ray is the Samuel Eig Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies in the Theology Department. Professor Ray specializes in medieval and early modern Jewish history, focusing on the Sephardic world. His research explores the "convivencia" or coexistence between Christian, Muslim and Jewish societies in Iberia and throughout the broader Mediterranean world. His courses include: Under Crescent and Cross: Jewish Middle Ages; Jews of Spain in the Middle Ages; and Jews and Judaism in the world of Islam.]
http://medievalstudies.georgetown.edu/faculty/
No comments:
Post a Comment