“[The Bull Sicut Judeis] evidently helped the Jews greatly in times of distress, especially during the period when the popes were the undisputed masters of Church policy, the recognized guides of public morals, and the respected advisors, if not the suzerains, of emperors and kings. Even then the Bull did not stop all persecution, expulsion, or forced conversion; but its effectiveness decreased as time went on, because of conditions inherent in the evolving situation of European society and economics, and because of the weakness inherent in the Bull itself…

“The Bull began by asserting that the Jews must continue living under established custom. Nevertheless, popes themselves modified the rules under which Jewish life was to be permitted. The introduction of the Badge was one such change. Innocent III prescribed it at the Fourth Lateran Council; but, aware that it was an innovation, he justified it on the basis of the biblical command of tzitzit [the fringes Jews were to wear on their garments: see Numbers 15:38-39]. This principle of visible separation grew into the prohibition of social contacts and eventually evolved into fixed ghettos….The condemnation of the Talmud, first ordered by the Church in the thirteenth century, was certainly a clear interference with the time-honored right of the Jews to practice their religion as guaranteed by the Bull. So, too, was the increasing resort to conversionist sermons by permitting monks to invade synagogues on the Sabbath. Restrictions multiplied, while ancient customs were weakened.

“An important example of the Bull’s failure to make its point is the nice distinction which the Church drew between forced and voluntary conversion. The statement in the Bull is perfectly clear: baptism must be accepted willingly. Yet the meaning of the thought became doubtful early in the Middle Ages. Pope Leo VII, about the middle of the tenth century, for example, advised the Archbishop of Mainz to hold the threat of expulsion over the heads of the Jews. The clergy at the time of the crusades may or may not have deplored the numerous forced conversions which resulted from those semi-religious movements, but they said nothing about their being invalid, and an anti-pope considered it unheard of for permission to be granted to these forced converts to return to their original faith. The Church claimed that, baptism being a sacrament, it would be blasphemous to think that it could be disregarded. But this was not the difficulty; the real difficulty, as far as the Jews were concerned, was the narrowness of the interpretation of the term ‘forced.’ By the end of the thirteenth century, nothing short of death was considered sufficient objection to baptism. The popes, to be sure, continued to plead against the use of force, but they never disqualified the results. They did not, in fact, go beyond a plea in their objections to these and other violations of the Jewish status outlined in the Bull. The penal clause, contained in this Bull as in practically all others, was rarely, if ever, enforced. No one, as far as one can tell, was actually removed from office or made to suffer excommunication for converting Jews by force or even for the tortures and murders to which they were subjected throughout the bleak years of the Middle Ages.

“The final source of weakness which made the Sicut Judeis all but inoperative was the statement towards its conclusion which limited its application to such Jews as plotted no injury to the Christian faith. It seems like a natural enough limitation for those days. In effect, however, it opened the doors wide to anyone who plotted against the Jews. With this as an excuse, on the basis of false accusations or exaggerations, any restriction or condemnation could be justified. The bitter invective levelled against the Jews in the Bulls imposing restrictions offers a sharp contrast to the mild and reasonable exhortations of the Sicut Judeis…”.

From S. Grayzel, “The Papal Bull Sicut Judeis,” in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation (New York, 1991), pp.248-249.

Back