Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Friends of Israel - Stillborn Prologue
C. Hall

Friends of Israel - Stillborn Prologue
...Between basic Christian beliefs and the use to which those beliefs were put by specific men in specific periods... between sections of churchmen which were dictated by dogma and religions authority, and those which are properly attributable to individual personality or to the passions of a particular time, place and group... [distinction] must be made if we are to avoid attributing every action of every individual churchman to Christian beliefs or the decisions of the Church.... The simples[ position is to include within an historical description of the Church those actions of churchmen which the Church normally expccted its members to accept, as well as any actions which were influential in changing those norms. Actions which are not clearly traceablc to the institution, and which did not modihy h or were explicitly disavowed by it would be attributed to other factors. (Gavin Langmuir, « The Jews in Angevin England », Tradition, 19, 1963, pp. 232-233)

In 1926 the short life of Friends of Israel began. Ostensibly a pious association that prayed for the conversion of the Jews, h nevertheless had a viewpoint that was far from conventional. To understand its singularity in the Roman Catholic Church one must know the context of the corn-mon opinion of Jews, an opinion rooted in a traditional doctrine that had not changed since the fourth century and is only today being modified.

This tradition, without theological nuance, believed that Jews had killed the Messiah », and obstinately refused to recognize Christ, but in the last days a remuant would be saved. In order that the plan of redemption might be fulfilled, Jews must continue to exist but as living witnesses w their « crime » and as evidence of divine punishment, apart from Christians, with no authority or influence because of their degeneration from a once chosen people of God. The balance of contempt and toleration was difficult to maintain. During violent periods it was an invitation to maltreatment, if not murder, but it did oppose both extermination and expulsion while marking out Jews as the permanent potentiel scapegoat.

During the early 1920s the papacy was concerned about the British mandate in Palestine and the question of the « holy places ». Although earlier he did not seem opposed to Zionism, in an allocution of dm consistory (Match 10th, 1919), Benedict XV expressed his anxiety over the plan to create in Palestine a « privileged » situation in favour of the Jews and to « deliver » Christian monuments to non-Christians. Later he declared that the rights of the Catholic Church and all
Christian Churches in Palestine must be safeguarded (June 13th, 1921). During April and May, 1922, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Barlassina, visited Rome, and gave a well-attended lecture, which was reported thus in Civiltd Cattolica (1922, Vol. 2, pp. 461-625):
...The intention of Zionism is the conquest of Palestine. In order to achieve what they want, the Zionists will stoop to any mens. Protected by British authority, they are in reality the masters of Palestine, making the laws ami imposing their will on the whole population. Catholic, Muslim and even the Orthodox Israelites must submit to a thousand vexations.... They have at their disposai large sums of money, sent by Zionists' organizations... especially those of the United States and Great Britain. With this money they buy the land of poor Muslims ruined by the war, they found schools, and sometimes corrupt the moral conscience__ As reliable reports prove, the Zionists' intention is w expropriate little by little the Arabs and Christians.... To increase the number of their co-religionists, they arrange the immigration to Palestine of Russian Hebrews, almost all Bo/sheviks. No less fatal is the Zionists' work of immorality since they have become masters of Palestine; k has expanded terribly in this land, bathed with the blood of Jesus Christ. Houses of vice have opened in Jerusalem, Haifa, Nazareth.... Women of evil life swarm evervwhere and shameful diseases spread.
Today what is the condition of Catholics in Palestine? Subversively, but systematically, the Zionists employ against them every possible vexation. Whenever there is a lawsuit !between a Catholic and a schismatic, the latter always vins. The aurhorities recognize the marnages of Catholic apostates married by schismatic priests, without taking into account the validity. Catholics who have their own schools must pay taxes for the maintenance of the non-Catholic ones. Catholic property owners are oppressed by taxes....

Shortly after the election of Pius XI, the secretary of state, Cardinal Gasparri, sent a memorandum to the League of Nations which stated that the Vatican was in no way opposed to the British mandate, but it did demand modification of certain articles which gave the Jews a privileged and preponderant position, and which did not sufficiently safeguard the rights of Christians, especially those of Roman Catholics. In regard to the first point, the subordination of Catholics and the native populations or religious denominations to another nationality or denomination was considered by the Vatican as incompatible with the mandate under article 22 of the Covenant (Memo published in Osservatore Romano, June 4th, 1922). Pius XI renewed the demands of Benedict XV in his speech to fris first consistory (Dec. 11 th, 1922).

The atmosphere of Pius XI's government can best be understood if one remembers that the Vatican had fought since Pius IX against what it considered the complete secularization of traditional Christendom. Caught between extreme nationalism on one side and the whole spectrum of the « lef t » on the other, the Vatican proclaimed that it would have none of these; they all, in one way or another, « denied the rule of God ». For several centuries the central ecclesiastical government had refused to hear the aspirations of the surrounding world, except when they threatened its « rights and privileges », and had withdrawn into its own vision of a Christendom where the Church's universal rule was acknowledged. When it attempted to come to terms with political realities, it found that the conservative nationalists and the monarchists who believed in the « good old order » favored the claims of the Church more than the liberal governments, which, if not hostile, believed in a religious toleration that reduced the Church to a subordinate position in society. In the minds of many Catholics, Jews were associated with the development of this world, with liberal secular governments, freemasonry, industrial capitalism, which had destroyed the rural « feudal » order in which Catholicism apparently flourished. In 1848, just before the outbreak of revolution, Pius IX had ordered the destruction of the ghetto walls of Rome, the last one in western Europe, but when he was restored a year later by Austrian and French monarchists, the ghetto too was restored, along with special new taxes imposed on the Jewish community, certain kinds of commerce forbidden as well as acquisition of property. Only in 1870 were the Roman Jews emancipated from the ghetto, by the newly united Italy under a liberal government. After the first world war there was a tremendous outbreak of anti-Semitism in central Europe, where the Austro-Hungarian empire had just been divided, particularly when there was a threat of socialist revolution or government. A phrase in Pius XI's consecration of humanity to the Sacred Heart (Oct. 17th, 1925) was the traditional teaching and was open to various uses: « Turn thine eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once Thy chosen people. Of old they called clown upon themselves the blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and lite ». The associations of devotion to the Sacred Heart, such as that at Paray-le-Monial, often drew conservative nationalists, those who yearned for the return w the old order, and in whom bred a traditional religious antisemitism.

The Friends of Israel came into being in this atmosphere, where the Vatican held fast as long as it could, then supplely gave way: « If it h a matter of saving a few souk, of averting ever graver danger, we have the courage to negotiate even with the devil » (Pius XI to bishops meeting in Rome, May 1933). Founded in Rome, 1926, by Anthony van Asseldonk, procurator general of the Canons of the Holy Cross, and the converted Dutch Jew, Francisca van Leer, with the collaboration of René Klinkenberg, it quickly grew to include 19 cardinals, 278 bishops and 3000 priests from all over the world. Basically missionary, it nevertheless off ered a unique program. Francisca van Leer herself was unique, full of fire, a « revolutionary of the absolute ». Born in 1892, she had participated in the Sparticist revolution in Munich with Kurt Eisen and was a friend of Rosa Luxemburg. Arrested and condemned to death, she bargained, « If I get out of this alive, believe in God ». Released, she became a Catholic, 1919, in Munich, and then studied under the Dutch Franciscan theologian, Laetus Himmelreich. Coming to Rome from Palestine, she persuaded van Asseldonk to form Friends of Israel. It was through his many Roman connections, as well as the influence of Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich, that it spread so quickly through the hierarchy.

Its program was explained in a series of pamphlets, Pax super Israel, written in a neomedieval Latin. It asked that the prayer pro perfidis Judaeis be removed from the Good Friday liturgy as offensive to Jews. The twelve points of its program are remarkable enough:

That one does not speak:
1. of a deicide people
2. of a deicide city (Jerusalem)
3. of the conversion of the Jews (instead one should say « return » or u passage »)
4. of the inconvertibility of the Jews
5. of the unbelievable stories about Jews, especially those of ritual murder
6. of their ceremonies with irreverence
7. of them in an exaggerated manner, in generalizations or in mockery
8. in an antisemitic manner. That one teaches as the divine documents do:
9. the prerogative of divine love towards the people of Israel
10 the very solemn sign of this love by the Incarnation of Christ and His mission
11. the persistance of this love, even more its increase by Christ's death
12. the witness of this love among the apostles.

This program put its finger on the fundamental problem of theological antisemitism.

Among the Cardinal members were five consultors of the Holy Office; Merry del Val, Pius X's secretary of state, van Rossum, who was Cardinalprotector of van Asseldonk's order, Frawith, Pomplli and Perosi. This, perhaps explains why Friends of Israel was so quickly condemned, two years after its founding, March 25th, 1928. The decree of condemnation pointed out very strongly the attitude of the Vatican towards the Jews. It praised the purpose of Friends of Israel — « to exhort the faithful to pray to God and to work for the conversion of the Israelites to the kingdom of Christ ». The Church had always « prayed for the Jewish people, who were the depository of the divine promises until Jesus Christ, notwithstanding the obstinate blindness of this people, but even because of this blindness ». Then the decree condemned antisemitism, the first time the Church had done so by name:
With what charity has the Holy See protected this same people against unjust vexations! Because it reproves all lute and animosity among peoples, h condemns most especially the hate against the once-chosen people of God, this hate that today is called by the name of antisemitism.

Following this came the condemnation of Friends of Israel:
However, noting and considering that this Association... has adopted afterwards a manner of acting and thinking contrary to the opinion and spirit of the Church, to the thinking of the Holy Fathers, and ta the very liturgy..., the consultors... have decided that the Association... must be suppressed. They have declared._ that no one in the future is permitted to write or edit books or pamphlets in whatever way that would favour similar erroneous initiatives. (Cf. René Laurentin: L'Eglise et les Juifs à Vatican II, Tournai, 1967, Annexe 2, for texts of program and condemnation.)

Two documentary articles in influential Jesuit reviews commented on this double condemnation. One, unsigned as was customary in Civiltà Caftalica, was « a particularly authorized commentary on the decree ». Titled « Il Pericolo Giudaico e gli Amici d'Israele » (1928, Vol. 2, pp. 335-344), it opens by saying that the sense of the condemnation is clear, « a decisive balance between two extremes, antisemitism and pro-semitism ». Although Friends of Israel began well, it quickly deviated into exaggerations which « scandalized some and forced the polemic of others ». The material for this « passionate polemic » was based on antisemitic rumors « which are not always lacking in foundation or pretext », but the prosemites wanted to profit from this violent opposition. However, « the cause of social peace andthe Roman Catholic religion gains nothing, and even less the conversion of the Jews ». Certain people have accused Pax super Israel of JewishMasonic influence, but in fact it was bad theology which led to erroneous propositions and inexact phrases ». « The very partial tille Friends of Israel created apprehension and incertitude » towards « a simple crusade of prayer for the salvation and conversion » of the ancient chosen people.

Then the article points out how the work of La Société du Règne de Jésus-Christ of Paray-le-Monial conformed better to its apostolate « for the Sacred Heart and the conversion of Israel » than that of Friends of Israel. lis review Regnabit is referred to:
...Illustrates without dissimulation the Jewish peril, although in some parts perhaps exaggerating..., [which] cornes from an occult power by which the Hebrews govern the would, either from a physical force, by which they disseminate and multiply in all climates and tountries, or from an intellectual strength, which has endowed them with strange powers of assimilation and dissimilation... above all from a domineering ambition, or the combined force of their « means of action », indicating the secret societies, the press, wealth, which is so much in their bands, as high finance.

From all that, the « pious authors » of Regnabit do not conclude they must hate or exterminate the Jews, as do those antisemites « certainly anti-Catholic », but « this does not lessen the necessity of trying to decrease by a massive apostolate of prayer the threatening social danger of the Hebrews ». « Here is a spirit of charity never condemned » for the decree recommends prayers for the Jews « not because they are more innocent and deserving than others... but because more than others they are exposed to hate by their own evil actions ».

Antisemitism is « against the true Church of Christ », but the author complains that antisemites call Jesuits accomplices of the Jews:
We wish that those antisemites [would not] accuse us and out colleagues of being the accomplices, friends and supporters of the Jews and free-masons... and this is only because we do not approve of certain methods, inventions or exaggerations, which seem very pernicious to us as they are contrary to truth and justice.

But what Civiltà Cattolica has constantly stressed is that one « must always conserve — notwithstanding the sad opposition of the Jewish danger — the balance of charity and justice ». Unfortunately, « liberalism has freed the FIebrews... from the ghetto »; now they have become
« economically privileged, powerful, proud and rich ». However, the Friends of Israel did not recognize the « sad reality of the Jews », but
« always defended and excused them »:
...The Jewish perd threatens the whole world by intrigues and subversion... especially ...among Catholics and Latins, where the old liberalism has greatly favored the Hebrews, while persecuting Catholics and above all the religions congregations. This danger grows more pressing every dey, and out magazine has the ment to recognize h... to denounce and document this peril by solid proofs and facts of its frequent and undeniable alliance with freemasons, carboneria, and other societies, camouflaged as patriotic... but in reality wanting ta subvert... contemporary society, religion and civilization.

The other article is by Joseph Bonsirven, S.J., who had started to write a chronicle of French Judaism in 1927, appearing from time w Urne in Etudes. Within the chronicle of « La Judaïcité vivifiée et menaçante » (Oct. 20th, 1928, pp. 187-217), Bonsirven mentions the deaee condemning Friends o/ Israel, for « some Jews have rushed to cry antisemitism and some Catholics were not far from echoing them ». However, the
« authorized » article of Civiltà Cattolica explicitly pointed out that the decree condemned antisemitism « in its anti-Christian form and spirit », but that some are « enemies of the Jews by passion for a party or a nationalism, by material interest, jealousy or commercial rivalry, and for other reasons not based on morality and religion ». Bonsirven contests:
Nevertheless, Christian law does not know how to condemn antisemitism which arises as an ethnie defense against the dominating and corrupting attempts of an invading and dangerous minority, and dut only hasrecourse to legitimate means. But once the doors of a nation are opened either by liberalism or humanity to ail kinds of foreigners, how can they be closed? Besides, how can these preventive measures succeed, when massacres and exiles have failed before and have not stoppez] the Jews from proliferating and infiltrating everywhere and by which they acquire preponderance, if not hegemony? (Paraphrased from H. Belloc, The Jews, London, 1922)

Ten years later there will be a faim echo of all this in that much quoted phrase of Pius XI, as reproduced in Documentation Catholique (39, 1938, col. 1459-60):
No, it is not possible for Christians to participate antisemitism. We recognize everybody's right to defend himself, ro take protective measures against ail which menaces his legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are all semites.

Before he uttered this, the Pope had condemned Nazi neo-paganism and racism, although not specifically mentioning antisemitism, Mit brennender Sorge, 1937:
The Creator of the Universe and dm Legislator of all peuples cannot be imprisoned within the frontiers of a single people, within the pedigree of a single race.... Whoever exalts race, or nation, or the state to the highest norm, and worships them like idole, perverts and distorts the Divinely ordained order....

Then he condemned the banishment of the Old Testament:
Only ignorance and arrogance can blind one to thz treasures of the Old Testament.... He who wants to banish biblical history and the wisdom of the Old Testament from school and church commits blasphemy against the Word of God.... He negates the faith in the incarnate Christ, who took on human nature out of that people which was to crucify Him....

Francisca van Leer, after the condemnation, supported by Cardinal Faulhaber, lectured in Munich on die Old Testament in order to give a better understanding of the Gospels w Christians. During a series of Advent sermons, 1933, Faul haber spoke out against racism and defended the Hebrew Scriptures, but he also said that the ancient Jewish people could not claim it wisdom,
«This condemnation of usurious land-grabbing, this war against the oppression of the farmer by debt, this prohibition of usury, is not the product of your spirit ». Civiltà Cattolica complained that Nazi antisemitism « did not come from religions conviction nor a Christian conscience.... We could understand or even praise them if their policy was restricted to legitimate bounds of defense against Jewish organizations and institutions » (No. 2024, 1934).

Without dotting every i and crossing every t, this account of the premature Friends of Israel ends simply with the story André Neher tellsabout the visit to Jerusalem in 1957 of the Yiddish poet Leivick:
Asked by his Semis to say a few words, he looked at the hill on which stood die Yad-Vashem memorial six million. Then Leivick said, «When I was a child in heder, mv reh told me the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, hou, Abraham had obeyed God, and how at the last moment an angel came to stop the knife already raised. Reb, I said in anguish, what if the angel had arrived late? Know my son, replied the reb, that the angel never arrives late ».
Gesturing towards Yad-Vashem, Leivick conduded, « Today we know that the angel arrived late six-million times. Yes, the angel can arrive late, but man, man has not the right w arrive Tate ». (« Les Nouveaux Farés du Désert », L'Arche, No. 133, 26 mars-23 avril, 1968, p. 68)