Customer Reviews

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History

5 star:		(119)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(18)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(98)

 

 

I actually hadn't planned to review this book, but when I read some of the writings of those who had I thought I should.

First, let me say what I think the book isn't. It is not an anti-Catholic scree as some might have you believe. The fact that some have interpreted it thus tells you a whole lot more about them than it does about the book. So what is the book about? Briefly, its thesis is that Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular have adopted the theological position that faith in Jesus Christ represents the one and the only route to salvation. This thesis should not be controversial to anyone familiar with Christian doctrine. The implication of this thesis is that all other proposed routes, and especially the one proposed by the Jews, who should "know better" are false. The tradition of Judaism, as well as all other religious traditions, thus become not only mistaken, but wrong and even dangerous.

The book documents how this tension between Christianity/Catholicism and its self-defined rivals has played out in history, and how it created the moral and intellectual environment in which the Jews would be at best marginalized and despised. And how at worst, they would become victims of violence and murder.

It's worth the read. And I would say to its hostile reviewers that it's worth a re-read. The history of the holocaust has to be understood as a product of Western civilization, within which it happened. In this context, it is necessary to examine how the major institutions of the west, including the Church, created the environment in which the holocaust could occur.

No one should blame the messenger if the message is unwelcome.

Given the very different directions we come from - James Carroll is an Irish-American baby boomer, a former priest and practicing Catholic; I'm a Jewish atheist from Israel, born after Carroll's departure from the clergy - it is hardly surprising that I disagree with him somewhat. More interesting is the nature of my disagreements with the arguments of "Constantine's Sword", Carroll's brilliant, personal, wide-scoped travelogue through 2 thousand years of Jewish-Christian relations: I find myself considerably less critical of the Catholic Church than Carroll is.

I think the difference is that Carroll, the Christian, sees the Church as the "mystical body of Christ", a religion whose purpose is to be true to the teaching of Love that he believes Jesus had preached. When the Church fails to reach Carroll's high standards, he condemns it. On the other hand, as a secularist, I see the Catholic Church as a thoroughly human institution, to be judged not against the absolute standard of the Prince of Peace, but against comparable, contemporary institutions. In perspective, throughout history, the Catholic Church had been a protector of Judaism and of Jewish people; its treatment of the Jews had been -relatively- benign. Only with the rise of the Enlightment, and with the widespread acceptance of the Rights of Man, can we see in the Church an oppressor of the Jews. Its failure to the Jews - so spectacularly presented in the Silence of Pius XII during the Holocaust - was caused not so much by anti-Semitism as by anti-Modernism. Until recently, the Church had been "on the wrong side of history" - together with the reactionary forces and against the Enlightment-era liberal ideas and groups it had denounced as "Americanism".

Carroll's history goes, from Jesus Christ to the Cross in Auschwitz. He focuses on places where "the past might have gone another way" (p. 63). The first of these is the split between Judaism and Christianity, symbolized by the sealing of the New Testament and of the Jewish Mishnah. "The siblings [Judaism and Christianity] moved from mere rivalry to open hostility - a fight over the vision that... could have united them" (p. 148). Thus Judaism and Jesus movement should never have parted ways.

I disagree. There is no, and never has been, place for Jesus within the confines of Judaism, no more than there was a place in Christianity for Joseph Smith. Any religion, after its foundation stage, is closed to further Revelation. Within Judaism, Jesus could never have been more than an obscure Rabbi. As a major prophet, let alone as God incarnated, Jesus had to be the center of a new religion.

The second "decisive turn" of the history is the Christianization of the Roman Empire by Constantine. With Christianity in power, its triumphant supersessionist instinct - seeing itself as the real Israel, and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies - became dominant, and forever after governed the treatment of Jews in Christendom - they were allowed to live, but not to prosper. (pp. 217-219).

But as Carroll acknowledges, there is another side to this story. As the Augustinian approach to the Jews triumphed over extreme views promoted by the likes of John Chrysostom and Ambrose, the Jews received a part, though secondary, in the Christian scheme of things. Given the politics of the time, a more tolerant approach is unthinkable. The entire logic of the religious unification of the Roman Empire was to create a homogenous state. For that, religion pluralism would have been anathema. But it is not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine a unifier Emperor who was a follower of Mithra, rather then of Christ. Had Mithraism become the dominant religion of the Western World, Judaism would not have survived. Like the Pagans, Jews would have been persecuted and forced to convert. Only under Christianity, with its roots in Judaism, could Jews hope to find a niche for themselves.

Fast forward a thousand years or so, and we have the Crusades, Blood Libels, and the Inquisition. Carroll sees the Church's fault in all of these; particularly, he laments the acceptance of Anselm's theology of God-becoming-man, making a universal claim for Christianity and focusing on Jesus' death; here the untaken road is the one advocated by Peter Abelard, who preached a Gospel of Love and believed that Jews were also saved (p. 295).

We'll return to the question of exclusivity, but for now let us notice that although the Church had initiated the Crusades, it opposed the attacks on the Jews carried out by the Crusaders. The Catholic Church initiated neither the Inquisition, the Deportation of the Jews, nor rounding them up in Ghettos (It did use these methods at times, but only after other European Kingdoms). Christian Anti-Judaism probably had something to do with these prosecutions, but the dismal record of mankind suggests, alas, that even without religious motives, people are quite capable of atrocities.

I fully support Carroll's accusations of the Church during the Modern Era, though; The Catholic Church had never dismantled the Roman Ghetto, long after Ghettos were dismantled throughout Europe. In France, Catholics were a major force behind the attacks on Captain Dreyfus. And during the Second World War, Pius XII's silence simply cannot be excused.

Carroll ends with a further turning point: A future one. His "Call for a Vatican III", a Congress of all the Catholic Bishops, like the ones from the 1870s and the 1960s, to focus on Catholic-Jewish Relations. Carroll desires two major changes in the Church: the Renunciation of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and the rejection of the Church's claims of exclusivity.

Carroll correctly notices that exclusivity is inherently intolerant. The Church's view of itself as the "Absolute religion" (p.591) is assuming its superiority over other points of view, whether Jewish, Protestant or Atheist. Carroll wants the Church to renounce these "Universalist" claims, and follow the pluralistic theology of the likes of Abelard and Nicholaus of Cusa (p. 593).

But there is a reason for the Church's rejection of Nicholaus and Abelard's teaching, and it involves a word that is hard to find in the 600 odd pages of Constantine's Sword: Mission. The Church's instinct, from the very moment Paul started preaching, are to tell the Gospel, literary the "Good News". If there is no advantage to Christianity over other religions, what possible justification can the Church have for its missionary effort? If Catholicism is not, in some sense, "better", "truer" or "more complete" then other religions, why would anyone seek to join it, and how can the Church be dedicated to the task of convincing others, in the Zero Sum game of religious identity, to join in? The Missionary instinct is at the very core of Christian values: The Church could not possibly deny it.

Carroll's treatment is also blind to the realpolitiks of the Church itself. The majority of its constitution is considerably less liberal then Carroll. Consider that a sizable group of Catholics left the Church following the mild reforms of Vatican II. Imagine the reaction to the Church's acceptance that it has a "flawed Gospel" (p. 567), that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were actually put there by flawed, anti-Semitic first and second century Church fathers!

That is not to say that there is nothing the Church could do to ameliorate its relations to the Jews and to repent for its conduct. The Church could stop the Canonization process of Pius XII, who was not "Hitler's Pope", but was no saint, either. It could excommunicate Hitler, 60 odd years after the fact, but better late then never*. And it could, and should, dismantle the Cross in Auschwitz, where it is certainly inappropriate.

In writing these reviews, I often find myself frustrated at Amazon's rating system. Regularly, what I wish to communicate about a work is in the text of the review, not in the number of stars I give to it. This is an exception - what I'd like the reader to learn from this review is not my opinions on it, but that Carroll has written a thoughtful, compelling, fascinating, human book.

*22 June 2009 Update: One of the learned commentators has pointed out that, according to Catholic teachings, only the living can be excomunicated. He has also cited the Catholic Encyclopaedia to that effect.

Overall, this is a highly readable and well-researched book, containing elements of history, journalism, and autobiography. The reviews posted so far to this site are clearly and evenly divided into two camps: those who found it enlightening and moving and those who regard it as anti-Catholic diatribe. While the book has some minor flaws, I direct most of my comments to statements made by the latter group.

First of all, Mr. Carroll, is still a devout Catholic: he was not "defrocked" (he left the priesthood on his own accord), and he was never "excommunicated" (this statement, repeated by many customers, is malicious--and sinful--slander). Second, many of the reviewers refer to "fabricated quotes" without ever citing any examples. In fact, the Church Fathers--John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and others--and later Catholic leaders all said the horribly anti-Semitic things Carroll attributed to them and, furthermore, most of the Church Fathers did advocate the forcible conversion and/or slaughter of the Jews. (All of Carroll's quotes--most of them from primary sources--can be found in the standard Catholic reference works that he cites in the bibliography.) Third, like most historians, Carroll relies on a mixture of primary and secondary sources that shows a strong command not only of the history but also of the historiography of his subject. The statements by several commentators that Carroll does not use primary sources simply shows those readers did not bother to look at the notes. (His notes often present beliefs and arguments that run counter to his own.) And, fourth, while Carroll is often critical of the Church, its history, and its teachings, his criticism can hardly be called "anti-Catholic"--unless, of course, you believe, the Church is above any criticism whatsoever.

Finally, this book was clearly written by a man who loves his religion and his Church, but continues to believe that both can evolve into something better. Yes, it is true that Carroll emphasizes the horrible things that Christianity and its followers have historically done to Jews; it is also true that he tends to ignore the good. But his goal is an attempt to understand how the long and sordid history of Crusades and pogroms and the horror of the Holocaust could have happened in a Christian world. Carroll correctly focuses on the bad because, when all is said and done, all the good teaching disseminated by Catholic leaders did little or nothing to save the Jews from two millennia of persecution by Christians.

I just finished reading James Carroll's book, and I found him to be a brilliant writer. Weaving together both two thousand years of Church history and his own personal spiritual journey, Carroll makes a strong case that the Catholic Church's anti-Judaism (starting with the Gospels) created a significant foundation for the anti-semitism of individual Catholics, and further that the history of the Church's approach to Jews bore fruit in the near genocide of the Jewish people in the 20th century. Some of the other reviewers of this book on this Amazon.com page seem to focus on character assults against Carroll, but I'm not sure how their hatred of him changes the history that he presents. I think it will become a classic work on the Church's relationship with the Jewish people, and hopefully it will lead to a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the people who still live out the religious tradition of which Jesus was a part.

Carrol has the courage to question the basic tenets of the catholic church. He does an good job of showing that all of these tenets are in fact man-made tenets, many developed for political purposes. We need more God knowing men and woman with the courage to challenge antiquated religious dogma, dogma which has for centuries turned many of our more intelligent men and women away from organized religion and sadly away from God. It is encouraging to me to see books appearing on the scene like Constantine's Sword, An Encounter With A Prophet and Conversations With God - books which are more concerned with truth than conforming to any religious dogma no matter how ingrained that dogma is in our society.

Carrol writes an extraordinary book of incredible depth and substance. Carrol seems to understand that institutions are created by people and people have their own agendas both conscious and subconscious. Carrol has the courage to question what are often perceived as the basic tenets of the church, and does an excellent job showing that these man-made tenets often had an interesting an unique background. Although I teach history I was unaware that the apparitions at Lourdes only happened in the late 19th century. Additionally, many holocaust survivors make clear the efforts of individual catholics to help them, however the institution itself was largely dormant. While the Vatican may not acknowledge this, both the French and German bishops have come to terms with their malfeasance and nonfeasance. I think open-minded Christians and non-Christians will benefit greatly by this book.

There's a lot to recommend about this book. James Carroll, a former priest, focuses an intense analytical gaze on the Church's early history and its more modern doctrines in an attempt to discern events and ideas that may have fostered persecution of Europe's Jews throughout the millennia. Carroll's thesis, while not entirely novel, is studied in depth: That the hostility of the early Church toward the Jewish population stemmed in large part from sectarian strife between early Christians (who were themselves, by and large, Jews in Roman Judea and Samaria) and competing Jewish sects which, due to a mixture of politics and social tension in the late Roman Empire, became amplified into a deep-seated animosity enshrined in the doctrine propounded by Ambrose, Augustine, and many others. Constantine's fusion of the tottering Roman political structure with the organization of the young and vigorous Church, Carroll believes, was an act of "imaginative genius" which crucially reinforced the late Empire and fundamentally altered the course of history. But over time, it entangled the ancient sectarian conflict with recurring political challenges, confusing the original context. This by itself did not instill the deep-seated anti-Semitism that would lead to pogroms and persecutions later; but as Carroll argues, many twists in history which could have easily turned out otherwise, wound up reinforcing hostility within Europe to its Jewish population. It's a variant on the old idea that feuds among estranged members of the same family can be the most bitter, except that the original feud and its bases were forgotten as the church structure and doctrine developed. A fascinating idea, and a reaffirmation of the need to remember the context in which ancient disputes may have arisen-- perspective is gained from this.

There are some accusations that the book is an anti-Catholic diatribe, which I don't think is fair; there are several instances when Carroll defends the Church, for example when he notes the Church's protection of Europe's Jews during the bubonic plague epidemics (actually clearing up a misconception commonly held). But Carroll also commits errors of omission and sloppiness in many places, which is unfortunate; it does a disservice to his readership on such a sensitive issue, and it is perhaps the main reason that so many reviewers have responded with such excoriating criticism, not without some justification. In too many places, Carroll relies on discredited or patently biased secondary sources that propound questionable or unsupportable theories, and totally fail to back up their claims with evidence. He offhandedly cites a source that compares ancient Rome to a modern totalitarian state, an appallingly false misrepresentation of history that fails to consider how much Rome differed, as in its wide granting of citizenship; its promotion of a responsible civil service; its vigorous provision (since the reign of Augustus) for the well-being of the provinces via roads, aqueducts, steady grain supply, postal service, and many other innovations. It could be a brutal and violent place, like anywhere else at that time, but it was definitely not totalitarian. There are simply too many places where Carroll facilely inserts such rubbish, and it hurts his efforts. Furthermore, I do have to agree with some of the critics that Carroll's use of primary sources was rather selective; there were many occasions when the Church behaved far more responsibly than might have been indicated from Carroll's citations.

One other issue here-- Carroll's portrayal of Emperor Constantine is in the traditional mold, derived from Eusebius's ancient biography and carried forth. But there's quite a bit of modern scholarship to show that, if anything, Constantine was a master of compromise and tolerance. He himself did not impose his faith on the Roman citizenry, and during his rule the Empire enjoyed a period of religious toleration. Constantine himself saw to it that slavery would decline as an institution, and he introduced many genuine reforms that helped the downtrodden within the Empire's borders-- gladiators, plebians, and the people in the provinces. Read Constantine and the Bishops by H.A. Drake for a much more nuanced history of this period.

So Carroll's book is recommended, but with an asterisk; read it with some skepticism and a grain of salt, and you'll learn quite a bit.

In the early 17th Century, Rene Descartes was faced with a problem. He knew that the "New Science" that was emerging at the time was correct. (Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, etc.)And he also knew that Galileo had to stand trial and ended up condemned to house arrest for his "heretical" views about the physical universe. Descartes was no dummy, he knew Galileo to be correct, but he didn't wish to end up under house arrest himself...or worse, which is what the Church did to such "heretics." So he concocted his "Discourse on Method," which, for the first time, reconciled the "New Science" of the time, with the teachings of the old religion. He even used a rudimentary version of the "Scientific Method" to prove the existence of God, in a successful attempt to pacify the easily-offended Church and the faithful who followed what the Church had to say about such things.

James Carroll just may be a 21st Century version of Descartes. For the subject that he tackles is certain to be met with defensiveness from the Church. Carroll will unquestionably be labeled a "disgruntled Catholic," by many, a "heretic" by some, yet the fact is, he is anything but. If a Christian can somehow read this book, understand the points Carroll is making (it is neither anti-Catholic or anti-Christian) then that which has been painfully clear to Jews for centuries might finally become clear to Christains. Carroll offers a way for Christians to understand that anti-semitism was the equivalent of a "load-bearing wall" in the foundation of the Church. His story is about mortals who fell into this trap...and his point is that mortals are capable of falling out of it as well.

Like Descartes, Carroll offers a way for the Catholic Church, and Christians in general, to come to terms with Christian history (which is man-made) without the process having to result in a denial of Christian faith. If anything, it should strengthen it.

Congratulation to James Carroll, who, by the way, tells us all clearly in the beginning of the book about the way he uses "primary sources" (heaven forbid anyone should upset the politics of the present-day historian-establishment) and that his story is as much a personal one as an historical one. Keep that in perspective and you can begin to understand why the Jews have been on the receiving end of the world's "longest hatred."

Carroll does get very personal sometimes in this work, and I am not sure that the work couldn't have been even more effective without it. But then again, the revelations Carroll shares are not only historical, but deeply personal as well. For a Christian to truly come to grips with the need of the Church to have its villains, and still remain faithful (as Carroll does), will require more than just reading this book. A deeply personal transformation and new level of understanding will be required as well.

When I purchased this book, I thought I would be getting a documentation of the terrible history of the Catholic Church's treatment of the Jews. It is that but it is so much more. James Carroll is a former priest and professes to still be a believing Christian and a son of the Church. In this book, Carroll not only lays out the brutal history of Christian Anti-Semitism in the West, he demonstrates how Anti-Semitism is built into the very structure of Christianity, indeed into the Gospels themselves. This inherent Anti-Semitism, Carroll argues, made the Holocaust, if not inevitable, then at least possible and in fact likely.

After an introductory section in which Carroll presents some autobiographical material from his own life, he lays the book out chronologically beginning with the immediate aftermath of the death of Jesus right through the 20th century. The book is filled with the history of Christian philosophy and theology that I, as a non-Christian, am no expert on. Throughout his discussion, Carroll continually returns to what he considers to be the two roots of Anti-Semitism. First, the Christian doctrine of supercessionism, the idea that Christianity is intended by God to supercede Judaism which Carroll argues is contrary to the thought and teachings of Jesus. Second, the focus of Christianity on Jesus? death instead of his life, in other words, the Christian obsession with the cross, instead of Jesus' teachings. In making his case, Carroll presents the radical notion, at least in Christian religious circles, that the Gospels do not present an accurate portrait of the crucifixion at all. He believes that by the time they were being written, particularly the later Gospels, the followers of Jesus were already copying down a myth used to explain the death of the Messiah. After tracing the increasingly disastrous history of the Jewish experience in Christian Europe, Carroll chronicles the rise of secular European Anti-Semitism. The history culminates in the Holocaust in which, as Carroll and many others have shown, the anti-liberal Church did precious little to stop the murder of six million people. Finally, Carroll reviews what he considers to be the Church's meager attempts at reform during Vatican II.

In the last part of the book Carroll proposes a Vatican III council which would do nothing less than radically re-structure the Catholic Church and the Christian religion from top to bottom. Beginning with the excising of supercessionist ideas from the scriptures, changing the focus from the death of Jesus to his life and message and culminating with a complete embrace of democracy and the free exchange of ideas while jettisoning the notion that the Church is somehow without sin. Only in this manner, Carroll argues, can the Church break free of its ingrown Jew hatred.

This book is extraordinarily provocative. I cannot imagine a traditional Catholic even beginning to accept Carroll's ideas. I am surprised, frankly, that the Church hasn?t reacted with greater anger. As a non-Catholic, I will not begin to suggest what another religion should do to reform. Much of what Carroll writes about the Church and the Jews is true, in my opinion. And Catholics should not be surprised that Jews do not rush to embrace them for every minor gesture the Church makes towards the Jewish people. There is quite a lot to answer for. I certainly recommend this book to free thinkers of all religions and it is my hope that Catholics will read this book and, even if not fully agreeing with Carroll, at least gaining an understanding of the issues he raises.

John Carroll's book is at once remarkably insightful and frustrating at the same time. His thesis is that a systemic anti-Semitism originated in the early Catholic Church out of sectarian competition (as early Christianity was, after all, originally an offshoot of Judaism in the Roman province of Syria), that this hostility became manifested in the early Gospels, and that it became ingrained in orthodoxy upon the coalescence of the church as a formal organization in the 4th century A.D., a process promoted by the writings of early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Augustine. It's a fascinating idea, the notion that factional strife in an essentially regional context became transmogrified into something else entirely due to the contingencies surrounding the atmosphere of the early church. Carroll traces the effect of this purported doctrinal feature down through the centuries, arguing that it has had a tragic effect on the way that the Jews were regarded in their communities. In calling for such a contemplation, Carroll deserves praise-it's often easy to forget that all beliefs owe much to the historical context in which they arose, and Carroll is attempting to draw attention to this. He writes well, in a clear expository fashion, and his own autobiographical ruminations, on balance, are refreshing. And, Carroll is not blindly anti-Catholic; for instance, he comes to the Church's defense in regard to the anti-Semitic environment of the bubonic plague, noting that it did much to protect Jews throughout Europe, clearing up a misconception that occasionally crops up.

Nonetheless, Carroll does grave damage to his own cause by being so careless in too many places with his history; too often, he hasn't done his homework. He confesses in the first chapter that the book's purpose is more a philosophical investigation than a historical one, but on a topic this sensitive, there is simply no substitute for the utmost discipline and rigor in historical analysis, and it is here that he falls short. Most reviewers have objected to characterizations of recent church history, and many aspects of the Reformation and religious-war periods of the 16th and 17th centuries are also problematic; but my greatest concern arises from his depictions of the early history, specifically, early Rome, where Carroll builds his thesis but commits many errors. He states, for example, that Roman policy made the emperor an object of worship; while some emperors were added to the polytheistic Roman pantheon, this occurred *after* their deaths, not during their lifetimes, as Carroll suggests on numerous occasions. Carroll also fails entirely to depict the complexity of the political situation in Roman Syria/Judea; Augustan imperial Rome was actually remarkably *tolerant* of the religious practices of the province, and instituted a set of policies unique to that region to provide accommodation. The fighting that occurred later in 70 A.D. had important causes inadequately explored by Carroll; furthermore, he casually accepts the claim from a second-hand source that Rome was "the world's first totalitarian state," an utterly ridiculous notion that pops up every few years in classical studies circles, only to last all of 5 minutes before being crushed by the mountain of evidence to the contrary. This all suggests a worrisome pattern, because it indicates that Carroll is too often willing to swallow whole even weak and unsupported notions that support his thesis, yet not willing to do the hard work of scrutinizing it in detail, thus providing the nuance that would so strongly help his cause. Most crucially of all, Carroll views Emperor Constantine's conversion to and promotion of Christianity, in the Council of Nicaea and the founding of Constantinople as a Christian capital, as a work of "imaginative genius" whose purpose was a political unification of the Roman Empire on the basis of a uniform Christian doctrine. This is an old debate, but while the Nicene Creed undoubtedly had a unifying feature to it, Constantine for his own part had a streak of religious toleration, openly allowing and respecting continued pagan worship and, as much research has shown, even alternate forms of Christian worship. "Constantine and the Bishops : The Politics of Intolerance" by H.A. Drake discusses this in depth; it is a far more scholarly examination of the same themes that Carroll is investigating, and I highly recommend it.

Thus I find that both the positive and negative reviews of this book have a grain of truth. There's a lot to laud in Carroll's work, but it would be a disservice not to recognize where it also falls substantially short. Read it with this in mind (and preferably read H.A. Drake's book as well), and you can learn quite a bit.