# chhotebhai
A highly respected and erudite clergyman from Kerala sends me his articles. Of late he has made three claims:
- The Jews killed Jesus
- Priests have always manipulated people to commit violent acts, justified in the name of religion. The innocent “lay faithful” consider it their religious duty to whitewash or defend the criminal acts of their bishops/ priests.
- If a community or nation collectively commits a crime, then the entire community is culpable and therefore liable for the consequences.
I have tried to reason with this writer who claims to be rational/ logical and not driven by blind religious sentiment. His angst is largely driven by the unfolding dramas and scandals in his home State of Kerala – be they political, liturgical, moral or financial. I share his pain and concern about the developments in Kerala covering various sister churches (I detest the word “denomination” a legacy of the British colonialists), but not his “logic”.
I would have dismissed these statements as the ranting of a jilted lover. However, since the writer has many “followers” in the social and mainline media, I felt it necessary to question and repudiate such statements.
Who killed Jesus? Truth, like the proverbial onion, has many layers. For example, a child would be correct in saying that the sun rises in the east. But a scientist would repudiate that saying that the earth rotates on its own axis every twenty four hours, causing day and night. So too, though historically correct (at the child level) that the Jewish priests of that time instigated the crowd and forced the hand of Pilate in ordering Jesus to be crucified; it is but a partial truth.
I will not enter into a lengthy theological debate, for which I am not competent. I will just quote what Jesus himself said about his impending death. “I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will” (Jn 10:17-18). In the canticle of the servant of God we are told that “he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross” (Phi 2:8).
Ongoing Culpability & Liability: This premise is even more dangerous as it trickles down to present times. It is rooted in the inflammatory declaration, “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Mat 27:26). Even assuming, without admitting, that the Jews of that time were culpable for the death of Jesus, does that liability permeate through successive generations of Jews? It was this fallacious argument that led to centuries of anti-Semitism, culminating in Hitler’s extermination of millions of Jews.
Let us now examine the biblical understanding of culpability and the Catholic Church’s official teaching on this.
Two major prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, condemn a proverb that was prevalent in their times; “The parents ate the sour grapes but the children got the sour taste” (Ez 18:2, Jer 31:29). Both condemn such a trend of thought. “You will not repeat this proverb in Israel any more … The person who sins is the one who will die” (Ez 31:19) “Whoever eats sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge and everyone will die because of his own sin” (Jer 31:30).
The message is clear. Culpability and liability rest on the perpetrator of the act and not on future generations. Unfortunately, this karmic mindset seems all pervasive in India, especially among those who often blame their fate on the sins of their ancestors or a previous birth. It is a convenient way of absolving one’s self of individual culpability.
In the Old Testament, David is the best example of this. He had raped and impregnated Bathsheba, the wife of his Hittite soldier Uriah, who was waging battle for him. To cover his sin David recalled Uriah and tried to get him to sleep with his wife. But Uriah, being an honourable man, declined, as his colleagues were at the battle front. So David conspired to have Uriah killed (cf 2 Sam 11:1-17). But David, the “chosen one” had no remorse for his multiple crimes.
God then sent the prophet Nathan to David. Nathan told him a story of how a rich man stole the precious lamb of a poor man to feed his guest. David, in self-righteous anger, flew into a rage demanding to know who that wicked man was. Nathan calmly retorted “You are the man!” (2 Sam 12:7). This is an eternal lesson for all of us, especially those having “divine authority”, who in their pride, are blind to their own failings and, like David, use their minions to cover up their faults. To that extent I agree with the writer.
Silence against the acts of such criminals is itself a perpetration of evil. We are called to be like Nathan, to point an accusing finger at those who misuse or abuse religious authority today.
I revert to Ezekiel who has more words of wisdom for us on the role of the watchman. “I have appointed you as a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, warn them for me. If I say to someone wicked – Evil doer you are to die – and you do not speak to warn the wicked person to renounce such ways and repent, the wicked person will die for this guilt, but I shall hold you responsible for the death. If however, you do warn someone wicked to renounce such ways and repent, and that person does not repent, then the culprit will die for this guilt, but you yourself will have saved your life” (Ez 33:7-9).
Those of us who seek to be conscience-keepers, watchmen or prophets, could learn from the wisdom of the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Nathan. Indeed it is our Christian duty to speak up against crime and injustice, especially by those who claim to be our religious leaders, and possibly seek immunity by virtue of the same. Such acts cannot be classified as dissent or criticism. They are a prophetic duty.
Historical Wrongs: As the old saying goes “Two wrongs do not make a right”. There is absolutely no justification for holding modern day Jews responsible for what transpired 2000 years ago. I shall quote from one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). This is the “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” better known by its Latin title Nostra Aetate (NA). It is very clear about the Jewish people as also the voluntary nature of Jesus’ death. “The Church has always held … that Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his passion and death” (NA 4).
While it admits that “authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead, pressed for the death of Christ (cf Jn 19:16), still, what happened in his passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews of today” (Ibid). It condemns all forms of anti-Semitism. “Mindful of her common patrimony with the Jews, and motivated by the Gospel’s spiritual love and by no political considerations, she deplores the hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews of any time” (Ibid). Further, “The Church rejects as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, colour, condition of life or religion” (NA 5).
Religious Manipulation: Yes we must be alert against manipulation of public sentiment in the guise of religious immunity. We have often enough heard the term “Don’t wash dirty linen in public”. That actually referred to cloth used for menstrual hygiene. Now that sanitary pads are openly advertised in the media, this “proverb” no longer holds water.
What is important is that our prophetic actions should be motivated by the good of the ecclesial community and not because of personal angst or frustration with the acts of so-called religious leaders. Let us allow the Holy Spirit to guide us as it did the prophets of yore. That would indeed be a meaningful Pentecost, rather than indulging in a blame game.
- The writer believes in the Ignatian ways of spiritual discernment.