In his recent e-letter, Karl Keating addresses the issue of "Hereditary Guilt for Christ's Death". In it, he gives a moderately convincing argument for maintaining that the guilt for crucifying Christ lay only with the Jews (and Romans) at that time and place, who were not later converted Christians. With the imminent release of Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ", I think the time is ripe to give this thought some further elaboration.
The Scripture passage in question is: "His blood be upon us and our children." (Matthew 27:25) On the surface, it looks pretty convincing that the desire of those Jews uttering this assurance is to round up their children (and possibly, though not definitively, all descendents) into the blame game. It is undeniable that those who favored crucifying Christ, and did not later repent, are implicitly responsible for Pilate's decision to order the dastardly deed.
However, I think a case can be made for believing that the blood on the children extends only to the next generation. Since Jesus died in A.D. 33 and Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, it's pretty clear that the direct punishment for deicide extended to the generation of the children of those who originally favored it. Taking the passage in this sense means Matthew's inclusion of the utterance in the Gospel is indeed fulfilled.
Further, it can be argued it is unreasonable to impute guilt on those not directly involved in the decision to crucify Christ. I can agree with that. Here's an analogy. Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin. Their punishment was to be expelled from paradise and to lose their glorified state. Although the rest of the human race did not co-operate in committing the Sin, we certainly feel its effects in our fallen nature. Similarly, the Jews (and Romans) who crucified Christ, and did not later repent, are responsible in eternity for committing the act. Their descendants, however, feel the effects of that sin in their loss of close friendship with God, and the breaking of the Old Covenant to make way for that which is New, definitive and everlasting.
It can also be argued that, since the Old Covenant was vacated, the Jews, as well as the entire human race, are now subject to the New Covenant, under Christ. Thus, their salvation can come only through Christ, with all the usual nuance that requires.
So, even though most should be able to agree that the Jews are not corporately responsible for crucifying Christ, that does not let them off the hook. They, as well as the entire human race, are indirectly culpable for deicide whenever we sin. It was sin that put Jesus on the Cross more than a particular group. It is true they freely committed the act, but the Father in heaven, seeing all things, used their disobedience to bring about a much greater good - the Redemption.
I'm pretty certain the Church has never promulgated a doctrinal statement on this matter, and I'm unsure about the teaching of the Fathers of the Church; but my impression is that, until Vatican II, the belief in the corporate guilt theory was implicit and virtually universal. However, in an attempt to redress any potential misunderstandings about the Church's concurrence in the mistreatment of the Jews during WWII, the Council sought finally to clarify its position.
If any readers are more knowledgeable on this topic, I'd be pleased to have your input.
