Response to the So-Called “Coalition of Catholics Against Jewish Supremacy”
I recently participated in a conference with the Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism. All the talks, including my panel, can be seen here. I was initially somewhat skeptical when I was invited because I feel these events can sacrifice Catholic orthodoxy in favor of political correctness, but I did feel the motivation was good given the explosion of genuine antisemitism among young Catholics. After speaking with the organizers, I was reassured that I would be free to speak my mind, and was encouraged to do so. Thus, on the panel, I called out those older Catholics who, I think with the best of intentions, do not fairly respond to the concerns of younger Catholics, and in the process drive them further down antisemitic rabbit holes. I fielded plenty of controversial topics on the panel such as about Zionism and the Talmud, and people are free to go listen to my responses if they would like. After the conference, I had some students approach me privately to voice further concerns, and I was happy to speak with them. Overall, I think the conference went very well. I was glad to see Benedictine College create a space for students to voice their concerns, and I want to thank them for bringing me out to campus to be part of this great event.
After the conference, a group of students anonymously distributed a letter around campus. The letter was extremely disrespectful, such as calling the participants “antichrists” and including a quote that says “I doubt whether a Jew can be human.” I was disappointed that these students did not take the opportunity to speak to myself or other speakers at the conference about their concerns, as this was the entire point of the event. The letter contained numerous theological errors and even false quotations, as I will show below.
It has recently come to my attention that these students were suspended from the college for a year for this action. While I do not know all the details of the case, nor was I involved at all, this to me seems like an excessive punishment given the information I know. I have voiced to a faculty member at Benedictine my concern about this, and if any other faculty members at Benedictine read this, I urge you to reconsider and give a more lenient punishment. Consider the words of St. Augustine to Marcellinus about capital punishment (even if the punishment here is of course far less):
As to the punishment of these men, I beseech you to make it something less severe than sentence of death, although they have, by their own confession, been guilty of such grievous crimes. I ask this out of a regard both for our own consciences and for the testimony thereby given to Catholic clemency. For this is the special advantage secured to us by their confession, that the Catholic Church has found an opportunity of maintaining and exhibiting forbearance towards her most violent enemies; since in a case where such cruelty was practised, any punishment short of death will be seen by all men to proceed from great leniency. (Letter 139)
Ultimately, I am not the superior to these students and had no role in their suspension. I am only working off the little information that has been made public, as the college does not wish to disclose more in order to protect the privacy of the students. Nonetheless, I hope mercy shown to these students might serve to soften their own hearts.
While I have no role in the administration of Benedictine College, I have studied the theological issues surrounding the Church’s relation to Judaism and can give a response to it. Furthermore, this letters accuses me and other participants of being “antichrists,” a grave accusation. Again, I do wish these students had approached me or others in person to voice these concerns as I think we could have had a very fruitful conversation. Since they chose to voice such attacks publicly though, a public response is warranted. I hope this response will help these students to see the errors of their ways and repent.
Here is the letter:
To objection 1: It should first be noted that this objection is based on a spurious quotation. The word “Logos” in fact never occurs in the cited article in La Civiltà Cattolica. Nor is La Civiltà Cattolica a magisterial source. It is simply a magazine run by the Jesuit order and published in Rome. It only has an imprimatur from Pope Leo XIII in the sense that he was the local ordinary of Rome. Thus, even if the quote were authentic, it would not be a very important source.
To the actual content, there is a grave metaphysical error in it. The letter claims that “Jews exist purely and entirely in opposition to Christ.” However, given that God is the source of all being, how can something possible exist entirely in opposition to Christ? Even the devil, whose will is immovably fixed against Christ, is still good insofar as he has being.
Interpreted more charitably, perhaps the authors only mean they are in opposition insofar as they are Jewish, not insofar as they exist. Even here though, the Fathers of the Church unanimously teach that the Jews will convert before the Second Coming. Thus, they exist with a positive future role in providence. Furthermore, St. Augustine teaches that the Jews continue to exist as a witness people, pointing to Christ and the Church. It was on the basis of this teaching that St. Augustine that Jews were welcomed into cities in medieval Europe whereas heretics, schismatics, Muslims, and pagans were not. This witness doctrine is summed up quite helpfully by St. Thomas Aquinas:
Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good—that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites. (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 11)
Therefore, even according to the great Doctors of the Church, while the Jewish rejection of Christ is in fact wrong, the Jews nonetheless continue to unknowingly fulfill their role in pointing to Christ and the Church through the observance of their rites. Thus, even insofar as they are Jewish, they do not “exist purely and entirely in opposition to Christ.”
Finally, to call Joe Heschmeyer’s talk “nothing more than cope” is unbecoming of a serious interlocutor. These student should learn to speak in a mature manner if they wish to be taken seriously.
To objection 2: In this objection, the letter writers openly dissent from Church teaching by rejecting the authority of Nostra aetate, a document promulgated by an ecumenical council. It is ironic these students who accuse us of being antichrist are themselves openly opposed to the one Church of Christ.
The students base their dissent on the fact that one of the authors of the document (whom they falsely attribute full responsibility to) was Gregory Baum. It is true that Baum later apostatized from the Church and it is scandalous that he was involved with the work of the council. Nonetheless, the authors ignore the many other authors involved with it. For example, Fr. John Oesterreicher was another author, and he even wrote a defense of the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews. For much better accounts of the drafting of Nostra aetate, I would actually recommend Oesterreicher’s own recounting in the commentary on the council documents, or Gavin D’Costa’s book Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews & Muslims. Finally, it should be remembered that we accept the authority of the Church not on account of the holiness of its prelates, but on account on the authority of Christ who speaks through them. “He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me” (Matt 10:40). It seems these students have fallen into the heresy of the Donatists.
Regardless, these students are dissenting not merely from the Second Vatican Council, but from the traditional teaching of the Church. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, religion, the virtue by which we give honor to God, is a natural, not theological, virtue (ST II-II, q. 81, a. 5). This is because it regards God only as its end and not its object. That is, by the virtue of religion, one is ordered to God, but does not directly “touch” (attingere in the Latin) God.
Against this they quote 1 John 2:23 (which they cite incorrectly). However, this does not say that they do not worship the Father, but that they do not have the Father. This regards the theological virtues which take God as their object.
In fact, countless traditional authorities can be mounted in defense of his understanding. I highly recommend this video by Kevin Fernandez for a more complete explanation and more traditional sources on this.
To objection 3: This objection claims that the Jews do not still hold to the Abrahamic covenant. To support this, they invoke Mystici corporis. However, they here mistranslate it. Here is the original Latin:
Et primo quidem Redemptoris morte, Legi Veteri abolitae Novum Testamentum successit…
The text here clearly reads “Old Law,” not “Old Testament.” Pope Pius XII is rightly teaching here that there was a change in the sacramental economy. The ceremonial precepts of the Old Law pointed forward to Christ who was to come, and so once Christ came and accomplished our redemption, it ceased to be the occasion by which God communicated grace ex opere operantis.
However, that does not mean that there is no more role for the Jews whatsoever. As I explained in the reply to the first objection, they continue to serve as a witness people and will one day join the Church according to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Both these points are brought up by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in his 2018 Communio article “Grace and Vocation Without Remorse.” It is on the basis of these two points that Benedict (whose theology the talk by Dr. Ramage was on) argues for the correctness of the formula that the covenant was never revoked. Nonetheless, Benedict also points out many aspects of the covenant which have in fact been abolished, such as animal sacrifice, and points out that we must also take into account human unfaithfulness to the covenant.
Thus, there is not a contradiction here between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Pius XII. They are speaking about different things.
To objection 4: The letter objects to the fact that Ramage refers to the existence of the State of Israel as “fitting.” Here, Ramage is drawing on that same article by Benedict, where he says:
At its core is the conviction that a strictly theologically-understood state—a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises—is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises. At the same time, however, it was made clear that the Jewish people, like every people, had a natural right to their own land. As already indicated, it made sense to find the place for it in the historical dwelling place of the Jewish people… In this sense, the Vatican has recognized the State of Israel as a modern constitutional state, and sees it as a legitimate home of the Jewish people, the rationale of which cannot be derived directly from Holy Scripture. Yet, in another sense, it expresses God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel. (178-79, emphasis added)
Thus, Benedict is firmly rejecting the position that the state itself is required based on biblical prophecy, yet we can still see in it the faithfulness of God to Israel according to the flesh since they continue in their role as witness.
They object that Ramage did not mention Pius X or Benedict XV, but his talk was not on either of them, so this is not a fair objection. Regardless, the quote here from Pius X is from a private audience recorded by Herzl and so has no magisterial authority, and the quote from Benedict XV is likely spurious.
Let us grant for a minute though that St. Pius X is correct. We should first point out that Pius X does not wish to prevent this, only that he will not give approval for it. Second, Pius says that if they do come, the Church “will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.” Given that the Jews did come to Palestine, it seems our response should be one where we seek to bring them to Christ, not be hateful to them. One of the speakers at the conference was Yarden Zelivansky, a Catholic in Israel who has brought many Israeli Jews to Christ. Yet this letter accuses him of being a “antichrist” since he participated in the conference.
Finally, that there remains an ongoing connection between connection between the Jews and the land is something traditionally held by some of the greatest Doctors of the Church. While they are always cautious on the details, this is reflected in Benedict’s own caution as well:
Certainly no one questions that only that land is meant which is called Canaan. But that saying, To you will I give it, and to your seed for ever, may move some, if by for ever they understand to eternity. But if in this passage they take for ever thus, as we firmly hold it means that the beginning of the world to come is to be ordered from the end of the present, there is still no difficulty, because, although the Israelites are expelled from Jerusalem, they still remain in other cities in the land of Canaan, and shall remain even to the end; and when that whole land is inhabited by Christians, they also are the very seed of Abraham. (St. Augustine, City of God 16.21)
Until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled [Luke 21:24]. Of course, this time of the Gentiles is that which is discussed by the Apostle, saying a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved [Rom 11:25-26]. For when the promised salvation will have been obtained, they also will return to their fatherland, rejoicing once again in the possession and habitation of their former capital city, and perhaps it is not unreasonable to hope for this, because he did not say in perpetuity, but until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (St. Bede, Commentary on Luke, PL 92 588C-D)
Second, with regard to the end to which the liberation is directed: and there is hope for your future, [Jer 31:17] to signify that in the last times they shall be turned to the true faith and perhaps even to their own land, at the death of the antichrist. The expectation of the just is gladness, but the hope of the wicked shall perish (Prov 10:28). (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Jeremiah, c. 31, l. 4)
The latter two of these quotes were mentioned by me at the conference, so the authors of the letter should have been aware of them if they had paid attention.
To objection 5: Their final objection has to do with the relationship between the Jews and the Antichrist. Here they quote St. Hippolytus that the Antichrist will come from the Jews. This is universally taught by the Fathers and Doctors, so I agree with them that far. However, they miss the internal logic of the very quote of St. Hippolytus they give: the Antichrist “seeks to make himself appear like the Son of God.” That is, the Antichrist is going to try to portray himself as the true fulfillment of messianic prophecy so that he can claim to be the Christ. Thus, there is only one group of people he could go to in order to try to legitimize such a claim, the Jews, since this is where Christ came from.
This does not mean that the Jews ought to be identified with the Antichrist though. As we saw above, according to Ss. Augustine and Thomas, the Jews point to Christ, and according to all the Fathers, they will one day join the Church and finally reach that end to which they are ordered. The Antichrist seeks to ape Christ precisely by taking that people called to point to Christ and pointing them to himself instead.
The letter then objects that many of us referred to both the Church and the Jews as Israel. However, this is the traditional teaching of the Fathers:
And by Isaiah He speaks thus concerning another Israel: ‘In that day shall there be a third Israel among the Assyrians and the Egyptians, blessed in the land which the Lord of Sabaoth hath blessed, saying, blessed shall my people in Egypt and in Assyria be, and Israel mine inheritance.’ Since then God blesses this people, and calls them Israel, and declares them to be His inheritance, how is it that you repent not of the deception you practise on yourselves, as if you alone were the Israel, and of execrating the people whom God has blessed? For when He speaks to Jerusalem and its environs, He thus added: ‘And I will beget men upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall inherit you, and you shall be a possession for them; and you shall be no longer bereaved of them.’...
As therefore from the one man Jacob, who was surnamed Israel, all your nation has been called Jacob and Israel; so we from Christ, who begat us unto God, like Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Joseph, and David, are called and are the true sons of God, and keep the commandments of Christ. (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho c. 123, emphasis added)
We must note, then, and distinguish two Israels: one which receives the name because of the flesh, the other, by the spirit, has attained to the reality which is signified by the name. (St. Augustine, Letter 196, emphasis added)
As Justin points out, the Church’s objection has always been the claim that the Jews alone are Israel. And as St. Augustine points out, the Church and the Jews are Israel in distinct senses.
Thus, the objection that this would mean that Christ has two brides fails because we are not saying that Israel according to the flesh (i.e. the Jews) are the bride of Christ, but Israel according to the Spirit. Israel according to the flesh will still nonetheless one day be brought into the Church and thereby fulfill itself national destiny of being the bride of God, but in such a way that it does so with all the other nations who accept Christ and form one body, the Church.
I hope the students who posted this letter will consider these points seriously. I understand that many of you feel alienated from the modern world and like you are being given falsehoods as though they were true Catholic theology. However, as I have shown, your own letter is riddled with falsehoods and spurious quotations. The content of the letter also had little to do with the actual conference you were invited to attend. I am disappointed that you ignored this opportunity for dialogue created by the university and instead chose to go about a campaign of harassment against professors.
To Benedictine College, I once again ask for clemency for these students. It is true that what these students did was unacceptable and they do deserve to be disciplined for it. However, I think a year suspension will only serve to further harden their hearts by confirming their beliefs that “the Jews” are out to destroy them. These students have a zeal, even if it is not one according to knowledge. Perhaps some lesser punishment if they are willing to repent could serve to direct them in a better way. Nonetheless, I am deeply thankful to you for putting on this conference so the students could have had the opportunity to ask for answers in a respectful manner, as well as for bringing me out to campus to speak. I hope you can continue to put on more events like this in the future.