Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Jewish relations

[Caveat_lector_1]

@not_alice

Sure, but he and the next 1000 years worth of those that follow him will never acknowledge a schism either, meaning it still recognizes the hateful group as part of its own.

Meantime the group collects its own adherents, because, well, it is well aware of word-of-mouth marketing, including via the internet. it is more nimble, so eventually it wins.

See the conundrum?

I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence so I can’t respond to that. However, I think you drastically over estimate the appeal of SSPX. Especially as the Pope has ended the essential banning of the Latin form of the mass. I greatly doubt if SSPX will ever be a large group and I suspect that this brouhaha over antisemitism will do them no favors either.

[Sarahfeena]

@not_alice

Yeah, so now that the Pope knows about this Internet thingie, how long do you predict it will be before the Vatican has a web page, in plain words, in English and probably hundreds of other languages, that is an FAQ on what excommunication is and is not?

I predict…

“it will never happen”

Nothing the Church writes is ever written in “plain words.” Neither is our tax code, that doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with it. There is a motherlode of documentation on the Vatican website, including the full Catechism, all free for the reading. We’re talking about 2000 years of precedent on such topics, though…a little hard to distill down to an FAQ list.

Interestingly, what the Catechism has to say about excommunication is that it is a penalty, and that it can’t be lifted by anyone except the Pope, the bishop, or a priest authorized by the bishop, except in danger of death, in which case any priest can do it.

[not_alice]

@Caveat_lector_1

Yes, but we would prefer to move on with them having brought them back into the fold. It is the same thing with the Anglicans.

so you are still waiting after what, 5-600 years for the Anglicans? When is the message they are sending you going to be accepted?

That is why no one on the outside takes a single Pope seriously on the SSPX matter - because his predecessors have acted as though they are not bothered by time or intent of others communications, often violently, and this one has not shown he is any different, at least on the time aspect of it.

Where did I say people should be punished if they do not follow the Church’s teachings?

You didn’t, but you said this group was punished, that didn’t work, so now a conciliatory approach is in order. Paraphrasing of course. Is that how it is going with the Anglicans too, now that you mention it?

You are completely misunderstanding the situation. SSPX is a group that claims to have authority within the Church and still be part of the Church yet teaches things not in agreement with the Church. They are schismatic.

I get that completely, I do.

It is completely different from anything to do with Jews, Muslims, or even non-Catholic Christians.

Haven;'t we covered this a dozen times already in this thread. I think it is you that doesn’t get it. Doctrinally, no one on the outside cares. It is how it echoes and signals past violence to outside groups, because history repeats itself, that concerns others.

If a member of an organization does something related to that organization that displeases it there are often consequences.

yeah, follow the rules or let’s all decide you are not members anymore, or let’s find a compromise. Those are the only 3 possibilities.

[quoteIf a member of the Bar Association commits malpractice of some kind they will likely be suspended at best. No one thinks the Bar is going to start coming after Joe Schmoe for misquoting the law.
[/QUOTE]

No, a lawyer can be removed from the Bar completely. To the extent that the Bar has activities that affect non-members, non-members can and do discuss how it affects them and they behave and adapt accordingly.

Heck if SSPX really wanted to be separate they wouldn’t care about excommunication and would go on their merry way. Its only because they do want some part in the Church that that matters.

Precisely.

Which is why compromise is the alternative if the stick and the carrot don’t bring submission.

Compromise with a group of 100,000 thinly veiled anti-Semites who want to bring that aspect of their beliefs back to the church. At a time when the current Pope grew up as a Hitler’s youth.

See the problem there?

Personally I think the Church is the best place for any kind of sinner. In fact if we kicked every sinner out of the Church there wouldn’t be anyone left.

That is one solution. Dissolve the Church and start over. Maybe it is as they say, the “Best Alternative To A Negotiated Solution”.

Now sometimes excommunication is sadly necessary for those who are in such a position that a point needs to be made that what they are doing is wrong, but this is a fairly extreme thing.

Interesting. the first part of this thread was about Christians and Catholics saying excommunication is not punishment from above, but a self-called foul sort of like a pick up basketball game.

So, what are we outsiders to really believe if the lay folks can be so wrong and so certain once, and change with such certainty so easily a week or so later?

This really confuses me.

As to what the Church should do with haters within the Church, it should try and reform and perfect them as it does with all its members.

“reform and perfect” that is spin if I ever heard it. What I gather from this thread is that the Church never lets anyone go, even of their own free accord, and will try to bring back their descendents 100 generations later.

reform and perfect" hah!

I’ve seen someone who, through their association with the Church, turn from a bigot to someone who argues and corrects bigots.

and that never happens any other way? let’s not assign too much credit.

Now they could have been excluded and they’d still be a bigot as only at church and related functions was their bigotry challenged. Now if they’d been somehow leading others astray they might have been excluded, but that would not be the best thing and should be avoided if possible.

Blanket statements like that are crazy. I just came back from a roller skating party where there were signs that said no gang attire or behaviour is allowed, and anyone acting in such a manner will be ejected by security immediately. that makes it safe for others, or at least reassures parents that it is ok to leave their kids there. Sometimes it is better to simply say our group does not associate with “those folks” (for some value of “those”) in order to gather respect from the people you really claim to want respect from.

Not always, but some. See the parallels here? If the rink did not do its best to dissassociates itself from gangs, who do you think its clients would end up being and why? How far along that road would it need to go, if before it even arrived there, the reputation with non-gang parents was that the place was not safe or at least tolerated gangs in the midst?

[not_alice]

@Caveat_lector_1

I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence so I can’t respond to that. However, I think you drastically over estimate the appeal of SSPX. Especially as the Pope has ended the essential banning of the Latin form of the mass. I greatly doubt if SSPX will ever be a large group and I suspect that this brouhaha over antisemitism will do them no favors either.

the first sentence referred to previous schisms 1000 years ago still not being resolved, and no likelihood of a modern schism coming to a better or more prompt conclusion IMHO.

I think you don’t get it. No one on the outside cares about the influence of SSPX on doctrine, although if hey were nobodies, then why doesn’t each Pope simply swat them away like a fly? that they receive any continued attention at that level is evidence they are important enough to be taken seriously.

E.g. US can say al-Qaida is a trifling group of nobodies until the cows come home but their diplomatic and military actions say otherwise. Still Negotiation 101 here. Signalling is important.

The issue to outsiders is not so much that SSPX is anti-semitic. It is that the Church deals with them at the highest levels, and that SSPX is anti-semetic, hence the Church itself is tarred with that brush.

Advertise that you want to rent some rooms in your house to your county’s most heinous sex offenders. See if people start treating you differently, no matter how much you protest that you are still the same person. You will be associated with acts of the others in the eyes of outsiders, and that is what is happening here. Outsiders won’'t know or care what really happens in your house, it will be merely that you are publicly willing to bring that group into the midst of the larger group, however well intentioned that gesture may be, that will cause a rift. I guarantee it.

[not_alice]

@Sarahfeena

Nothing the Church writes is ever written in “plain words.” Neither is our tax code, that doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently wrong with it.

The church has a tax code? I didn’t know that!

There is a motherlode of documentation on the Vatican website, including the full Catechism, all free for the reading. We’re talking about 2000 years of precedent on such topics, though…a little hard to distill down to an FAQ list.

Really? A billion people and they can’t decide what they all believe with respect to the desirability of anti-semitic associations within the Church and express it? I bet any local parish Priest could give me a straight (and probably solid) answer to that, yet the Vatican itself can’t?

Interestingly, what the Catechism has to say about excommunication is that it is a penalty, and that it can’t be lifted by anyone except the Pope, the bishop, or a priest authorized by the bishop, except in danger of death, in which case any priest can do it.

Cite?

If so, how did we have the first half of the thread?

And if it is a penalty, how and by whom if anyone is it imposed? You only mention by who it can be lifted.

[Sarahfeena]

@not_alice

The church has a tax code? I didn’t know that!

Seriously, church documents read like one, though.

Really? A billion people and they can’t decide what they all believe with respect to the desirability of anti-semitic associations within the Church and express it? I bet any local parish Priest could give me a straight (and probably solid) answer to that, yet the Vatican itself can’t?

I thought the question was about excommunication?

@not_alice

Yeah, so now that the Pope knows about this Internet thingie, how long do you predict it will be before the Vatican has a web page, in plain words, in English and probably hundreds of other languages, that is an FAQ on what excommunication is and is not?

But either way, you have to understand that the Church talks about this kind of stuff all the time. They have conferneces, they write letters, etc. Go to the Vatican website and search on “anti-semitism” and you will get a ton of hits on all kinds of documents. It’s just not that easy to make a simple statement, because unfortunately, people like you and I are going to say, “Oh yeah? Then what about all the anti-semitism in the Church’s history?” And all that has to be discussed, explained, and re-examined in the light of newer ways of thinking. That being said, the Vatican has made very clear what their views are on anti-semitism. Here is a link a Vatican II document entitiled “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” dated 10/28/65. It says:

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Obviously, things have been written since then…you can find many things written on this subject on the Vatican website.

Cite?

Here’s the link to the relevant page of the catechism. It’s in section 1463, which reads in total:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

If so, how did we have the first half of the thread?

I’m not sure how this would have resolved the first half of the thread. As far as I know, none of these SSPX guys are at death’s door, so they need to appeal to their local bishop or the Pope to lift their excommunication.

And if it is a penalty, how and by whom if anyone is it imposed? You only mention by who it can be lifted.

I can’t find anything about that in the catechism, but I’ve always understood that it’s only your local bishop or the Pope who can excommunicate you, and considering that this section states that they are the only ones who can lift the excommunication, I’m assuming I was correct on that.

[not_alice]

I can’t find anything about that in the catechism, but I’ve always understood that it’s only your local bishop or the Pope who can excommunicate you, and considering that this section states that they are the only ones who can lift the excommunication, I’m assuming I was correct on that.

Exactly. if it is not clear to someone who even makes an effort to look for it after a lifetime of Catholicism (I assume) then it is meant to not be clear at all. the part about lifting the penalty merely says the penalty is “incurred”, which is deliberately in the passive voice. the reason for that is because it does not suit the Church’s purpose to be clear, and that is why I called it FUD. Where there is FUD communicated to outsiders and insiders, then both groups should be concerned at the lack of transparency. On any topic, by anyone.

[quote=“Sarahfeena, post:326, topic:483564”]

But either way, you have to understand that the Church talks about this kind of stuff all the time. They have conferneces, they write letters, etc. Go to the Vatican website and

[quote]

So for thousands of years there are guys who devote their whole life to studying in a scholarly fashion the very topic we are discussing, and yet they can not summarize their views in plain English. :dubious:

It’s just not that easy to make a simple statement, because unfortunately, people like you and I are going to say, “Oh yeah? Then what about all the anti-semitism in the Church’s history?” And all that has to be discussed, explained, and re-examined in the light of newer ways of thinking.

That is what an FAQ is and does. People do it all the time. Then, if the topic is dynamic, they endeavor to keep it up to date or issue relevant releases on the topic regularly. The Pope and the rest of the Vatican know this, that they don’t do it is telling to me.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

That was going on 50 years and 3 generations ago. At the worst, it is irrelevant today, at best, it needs to be renewed regularly and publicly, otherwise it is just words on a paper from some dead guys.
Here is a draft of a new version:

"The Church believes without exception that it is the one true Church. God has ordained us via the ‘New Covenant’ to do everything within our power to bring others in line with our beliefs.

Historically, there have been periods when the Church had influence with State authorities and used that to covertly and overtly, sometimes violently, persuaded people to join the Church. While that was the case in the past, we now repudiate any methods of conversion that rely on State authorities. direct or indirect, to influence people to convert religions. Anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available.

Jews, having been chosen by God for his first covenant, hold a special place in the minds of Catholics. While we wish for them to join us as much as we wish for others, because of our special history with them, we especially repudiate any active efforts at converting them and will only accept individual Jews as Catholics if they approach us first, at the Bishop level or higher. As above, anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available."

See, that was not so hard.

[DSeid]

Not so hard to find the rules.

Who can excommunicate?

Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars.

[Sarahfeena]

@not_alice

Exactly. if it is not clear to someone who even makes an effort to look for it after a lifetime of Catholicism (I assume) then it is meant to not be clear at all. the part about lifting the penalty merely says the penalty is “incurred”, which is deliberately in the passive voice. the reason for that is because it does not suit the Church’s purpose to be clear, and that is why I called it FUD. Where there is FUD communicated to outsiders and insiders, then both groups should be concerned at the lack of transparency. On any topic, by anyone.

As DSeid shows, it’s not that hard to find. Like you, I think it would be a lot less frustrating if it were explained in less dense language, but it’s not impossible to discern.

So for thousands of years there are guys who devote their whole life to studying in a scholarly fashion the very topic we are discussing, and yet they can not summarize their views in plain English. :dubious:

That is what an FAQ is and does. People do it all the time. Then, if the topic is dynamic, they endeavor to keep it up to date or issue relevant releases on the topic regularly. The Pope and the rest of the Vatican know this, that they don’t do it is telling to me.

That was going on 50 years and 3 generations ago. At the worst, it is irrelevant today, at best, it needs to be renewed regularly and publicly, otherwise it is just words on a paper from some dead guys.

They discuss these issues regularly and publicly all the time, in various contexts. Really, go to the vatican website and search “anti-semitism.” For instance, Here is an interesting document that arose from the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, which reflects on the Shoah and reiterates the same sentiments.

Here is a draft of a new version:

"The Church believes without exception that it is the one true Church. God has ordained us via the ‘New Covenant’ to do everything within our power to bring others in line with our beliefs.

Historically, there have been periods when the Church had influence with State authorities and used that to covertly and overtly, sometimes violently, persuaded people to join the Church. While that was the case in the past, we now repudiate any methods of conversion that rely on State authorities. direct or indirect, to influence people to convert religions. Anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available.

Jews, having been chosen by God for his first covenant, hold a special place in the minds of Catholics. While we wish for them to join us as much as we wish for others, because of our special history with them, we especially repudiate any active efforts at converting them and will only accept individual Jews as Catholics if they approach us first, at the Bishop level or higher. As above, anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available."

See, that was not so hard.

I don’t know what to say except that the Church doesn’t work that way, exactly. They made a statement, they expect their followers to adhere to it, and they don’t tend to re-word stuff just for the sake of doing so. Fifty years is nothing to the Church, and I doubt they would see any reason why this statement would become irrelevant. They will discuss it and reiterate it, as I said, in certain contexts, but the statement stands indefinitely. I understand that you’d like to see their statement interpreted in a certain, very specific manner, but I think you’d be causing more problems with a statement like this. If my Jewish friend is trying to discern a desire to convert and starts asking me questions, and I give her literature, am I violating your statement, for instance? There is no way the Church is going to make anything this black & white, these issues are just too complicated.

Incidentally, regarding “plain English,” I don’t know about you, but I don’t find these various documents I’ve linked to to be particularly arduous to read.

[Caveat_lector_1]

@not_alice

"The Church believes without exception that it is the one true Church. God has ordained us via the ‘New Covenant’ to do everything within our power to bring others in line with our beliefs.

Historically, there have been periods when the Church had influence with State authorities and used that to covertly and overtly, sometimes violently, persuaded people to join the Church. While that was the case in the past, we now repudiate any methods of conversion that rely on State authorities. direct or indirect, to influence people to convert religions. Anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available.

Jews, having been chosen by God for his first covenant, hold a special place in the minds of Catholics. While we wish for them to join us as much as we wish for others, because of our special history with them, we especially repudiate any active efforts at converting them and will only accept individual Jews as Catholics if they approach us first, at the Bishop level or higher. As above, anyone who violates this, whether lay or at any level of the Church hierarchy, up to and including the Pope himself, is not Catholic and will need to convert again the same as anyone else. There are no exception and no absolution available."

Is this what you want? Really? If so I’m sorry to say you are going to be forever unsatisfied. Besides certain theological points that don’t work (declaring someone not Catholic, no absolution) the Church is not going to put such overly stringent restrictions on herself just to please some people. If she can operate in a way that allows her to fulfill her mission and make people happy that is great. If not there are just going to be some unhappy people.

[not_alice]

@Caveat_lector_1

Is this what you want? Really? If so I’m sorry to say you are going to be forever unsatisfied. Besides certain theological points that don’t work (declaring someone not Catholic, no absolution) the Church is not going to put such overly stringent restrictions on herself just to please some people. If she can operate in a way that allows her to fulfil her mission and make people happy that is great. If not there are just going to be some unhappy people.

No, not really. I labelled it a draft so it would be open for discussion.

I am not Catholic and I am not Christian even.

I could not care less what Christian and/or Catholics consider their internal doctrine.

All I want is a clear, ongoing, public dialog indicating convincingly that the internal doctrine no longer represents a threat to outside groups. It occurs to me as I typed that it sounds like the terms of a parole, I am OK with that given the past history.

As for 50 years being a blip in the time of the Church, sure, but here are some numbers.

I am not yet 50 years old, having been born a handful of years before V2. when I was in the 4th grade in the early 70s, I was taught that the world population was about 2 billion people. Now it is about 7 billion people.

So we can safely conclude that at least 70 percent of the people alive today were not born until 10 years after v2.

V2 occurred at the tail end of the wrap up to WWII, abut 18 years after the end of the war.

The church is deluding itself if it thinks the world will believe it is engaged in an ecumenical dialog with outside groups yet can not find anything directly relevant to say on the topic other than what it pronounced contemporaneously regarding its role in the aftermath of WWII.

A deluded Church remains a dangerous Church, and that is directly the point of what I want to not have.

Even American political parties manage to put together updated platforms every 4 years explaining their current stance on what is important to them. this is necessary because times and circumstances change.

If the Church feels V2 was necessary and sufficient for all time, they are wrong. They may have been right had they not left open the perception that they are still in bed, or willing to be so, with anti-semites, but they did that and have not foreclosed the possibility by extracting themselves from the situation. It can only remain to be concluded that the Pope/Vatican is OK with that, and if it contrasts with V2, they seem OK with that too and willing to let the chips fall where they will.

Because most of the world was not alive at the time of V2, let alone WWII, V2 requires frequent and clear restatements to match current times to remain credible to living people on earth. If there were a true public ecumenical dialog, this would be a natural outcome and no additional work at all.

[not_alice]

One tried and true PR strategy for making a mess go away is to say somthing equally outrageous on another unrelated topic.

Sayeth the Pope today:

The Pope courted further controversy on his first trip to Africa today by declaring that condoms were not a solution to the Aids epidemic – but were instead part of the problem.

In his first public comments on condom use, the pontiff told reporters en route to Cameroon that Aids “is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

Sayeth the college of Cardinals, on the internet thingie that the Pope is into now I hear:

In 2003 a senior Vatican official claimed condoms had tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, exposing thousands of people to risk.

The then head of the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, said: “The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.”

He added “These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.”

cites: The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_af/af_pope_africa

[DSeid]

Well a pattern does emerge of a papacy not quite equipped for today’s era. This today.

The Pope is isolated and fails to adequately consult his advisers, said a Vatican source with 20 years’ knowledge of the Holy See.

Another Vatican insider described Pope Benedict’s four-year-old papacy as “a disaster”, recalling the pontiff’s previous inflammatory remarks on Islam and homosexuality.

“He’s out of touch with the real world,” the Italian insider said. “On the condom issue, for example, there are priests and bishops in Africa who accept that condoms are a key part of the fight against Aids, and yet the pope adheres to this very conservative line that they encourage promiscuity. The Vatican is far removed from the reality on the ground.” …

… “You have people around the pope who seem to be out of their depth. There needs to be a major re-think of the operation, not the structure necessarily but the people.”

The Vatican’s press office works to a timetable from a gentler era, closing each day at 3pm, and familiarity with the internet appears barely to have penetrated the Vatican’s cloistered confines.

The pontiff’s message is further confused by disagreement within the ranks. Cardinals and archbishops within the Curia, the Holy See’s administration, often appear to be at odds with each other, most recently over the excommunication in Brazil of doctors who performed an abortion on a nine-year-old girl who had fallen pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

A senior Vatican figure, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, spoke out in favour of the Brazilian archbishop who announced the excommunication, only to be contradicted a few days later by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.

“I think there’s a good story to be told about this pope but it just doesn’t get out because of the colossal ineptitude of the Vatican in terms of communications,” said John Allen, a veteran Vatican analyst with National Catholic Reporter who is travelling with the pope in Africa.