I understand that. However, I look on it as analogous to the difference between a person avoiding my company because I am Catholic as opposed to a person avoiding my company because I am not Amish. I would have a different reaction to each event; the burden of whether I was rejected or they were insular has shifted.
And I could understand your reacting differently on that basis. You are entitled to that. OTOH, I myself don’t care why someone is discriminating against me: because of what I am or because of what I am not. I care about the effect.
This is not just some academic or spiritual issue to my mind’s eye. The Church’s pre-Vatican 2 stances had very real and very deadly effects to some of my ancestors. Today we still have anti-Semitic attitudes endemic in Europe with 31% of Europeans believing that its the Jews in the financial industry that are to blame for the world’s economic crisis, 40% who believe that “Jews have an over-abundance of power in the business world”, nearly half “that Jews were more loyal to Israel than to their home country” and most pertinent to this thread 23% “blame Jews for the death of Jesus.” And that’s still in these apparent end days of Vatican 2’s call for tolerance.
I do not especially care if the Pope’s intents are anti-Semitic or philo-Semitic; I care about the effects of what he does. The effects are moving the Church away from the progress that was Vatican 2. The effect is embracing Jew haters and allowing the Church’s history to reassert itself (as mswas aptly put it). If I am, as mswas says I am, a bigot for being aware that these aspects of the Church’s history are not something I would want to see reasserting itself, then a bigot I will proudly be.
I do not see “the church” moving away. There are fewer than 400,000 SSPX members world wide–fewer than one third the number of Catholics in the Archdiocese of Detroit. Anti-semitism is not a cornerstone of SSPX beliefs. Within that group, one guy has made idiotic statements, for which he has been rebuked by both the pope and the leader of his own faction, and thrown out of his job. His statements have called forth immediate condemnation by the church in Germany, the bishops of the U.S., and the bishops of England and Wales, his home country, among others. His inclusion in the four individuals with whom the pope has provided provisional reconciliation appears to be a matter of confused signals within the Vatican bureaucracy. (I am aware that he is hardly the only SSPX member–or Catholic–who has expressed such hateful nonsense, but he is not representative of any significant faction within the church and is at odds with official policy at every level.)
None of this speaks well of Benedict’s management of the Vatican, but I suspect that your concern is not fully borne out by the actual event. I fully understand why you would be concerned; I just don’t think it is necessary in this instance.
DSeid First I’d like to say that I have said repeatedly on this forum that ‘bigot’ is not a very useful term, as it generally only means that you favor your own personal in-group. You favor Jews over Catholics, and that’s fine, but don’t toss around the term bigot either. I only use it because that’s what people who are conditioned to the politically correct mindset understand. Anyone who favors their own group but does not belong to a particular victim subgroup, is a bigot. Belonging to a victim subgroup allows one to favor the in-group and not be a bigot. Like as a Jew is a victim relative to a Catholic the Jew is not a bigot for painting Catholics with an overly broad brush. (as you have done) But Palestinians are victims in relation to Jews, so the politically correct answer here is that it’s ok for Palestinians to hate Jews, but not for Jews to be biased against Palestinians.
Basically, as I see it you are dismissing Catholics for what they do that doesn’t favor you rather than recognizing the aspects that do favor you. You’re upset that the bishop is no longer excommunicated but seem to find it irrelevant that the Pope denounced holocaust denial. (which has nothing whatever to do with the excommunication) For good relations to be found both sides have to want to nurture the good parts and be tolerant of the bad.
mswas “don’t toss around the word bigot”!?! Excuse me? I am not the one who “tossed it around” or told anyone else here that’s what they are.
You can see it however you want to.
Tom, the size of the SSPX membership, even the numbers of them that are explicitly anti-Semitic, is not the point to me. Nor am I concerned that there is a risk that the Church will accept blatantly anti-Semitic views as official Church positions.
But the “cornerstone” of SPXX beliefs is that Vatican 2’s moves towards ecumenism, towards having mutually respectful relations with other faiths, is a Bad Thing, and I find it hard to read this reproachment between the Pope and them as anything other than a sign that the Church is moving to that position some. That pre-Vatican 2 position encouraged much that I would like to not ever see again. Tom you dismiss it as fumbling, and maybe it was. Sarahfeena assumes that there was more going on in private, and maybe there was. But the more I have read and learned the more concerned I am for the long term of Catholic Jewish relations, not the less. And that is my concern.
Well, them St. Pius boys have done a 180 on this issue.
“the Web page of SSPX in the US has removed an article arguing that Jews are guilty of deicide for killing Jesus. The page was viewable as recently as last Friday.”
[Shawhank Redemption] “It’s a miracle!!!” [/SR]
The word “bigot” does not mean what you think it does. Decrying bigotry and tolerance of bigotry does not make one a bigot. It’s an inaccurate form of tu quoque argumentation.
And lawyers. Two millenia of lawyers arguing over the niggliest details of canon law. Read the Nicene Creed if you want to see what a prayer written by a committee of lawyers looks like. :rolleyes:
As for Pope Simon Bar Sinister and any movements to overturn VII, his predecessor started the swing back years ago and showed the door to any of us who wanted the Vatican II reforms to continue. Screw 'im.
Another update.
It seems like the broader question of what the rehabilitation of the SPXX group signifies is getting some consideration now.
Meanwhile the Pope has different views about politicians who legalize abortion.
Which confuses me given how excommunication has been explained here to me.
And just in case any one thinks that its only thin-skinned Jews who get offended:
That apology given after this.
Another update in case any one cares.
FWIW.
My last post in a row I promise. Just the Vatican reaction to Williamson’s “apology”:
Maybe “I wuz wrong” is hidden in Williamson’s statement somewhere. Don’t see it though.
"“To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize,” said Williamson.
If you were dishonestly scandalized and just trying to make trouble for the Church, no apology, sorry about that. And do Jews have souls anyway? I don’t remember the ruling on that.
Anyway, what’s the practical implication of the Vatican not buying this “apology”? Does the Bishop get denied admittance to Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride at the Holy See Theme Park?
Thanks for posting that. I’m always a bit skeptical of these coerced apologies, and it seems as though the Vatican is, too, based on your other post. It pretty much sounds like one of those “I’m sorry if I offended anyone” non-apologies to me.
I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t run it past TPTB before releasing it. Seems to me that if you are going to bother with an “apology,” you might as well ensure that it will pass scrutiny first.
As you say - he wasn’t really apologising so running it up the flag would have been pointless. All that ‘best available evidence 20 years ago’ crap. That was 1989 not 1944. The evidence was all in, the fat lady had sung her lungs out. He and his anti-semitic right-wing refugees from the middle ages should be totally disowned.
Maybe I have an overly pragmatic way of looking at things, but it seems to me that makeing an apology that isn’t going to be accepted is even more pointless. If he’s doing this to get in good with the Vatican, and they aren’t buying it, why bother?
Personally, as a Catholic, I’m happy with this latest development, because I doubt they will ever get to the point where they let these guys function as Bishops, and that’s just fine with me.
He’s between a rock and a hard place. He wants back in with the Church but wants to keep in with his fascist fellow-travellers so he’s basically going through the weasel-word dance until the Church hears something it can live with.
This is too priceless to omit as an addendum to the Williamson mess.
In his efforts to seek “the truth” about the Holocaust and brings his views up to date so as to placate the Vatican, it turns out that Bishop Williamson contacted notorious Holocaust denier David Irving for advice.
This makes sense to Irving, because he, um, is not actually a Holocaust denier either, just a poor striving historian who’s been misrepresented in the press. :rolleyes:
Another story making news today is the resignation of the Mayor of Los Alamitos, CA, who quit after an uproar over his sending a mass e-mail depicting the White House lawn as having been turned into a giant watermelon patch, with the message “No Easter egg hunt this year”. The ex-Mayor, who remains in office as a city councilman, reportedly will seek sensitivity training.
If he follows Williamson’s example, he’ll probably get it from David Duke. 
Talked to any Jews about it? I have known about this group for at least 20 years, my Catholic school educated and church going SO had never heard of them until I brought it up.
I don’t see any rank and file laity bending over backwards to do anything, let alone this. By far most have never even heard of this group, let alone understand the issues as discussed here and elsewhere. They don’t care, they leave it to me - a non-Catholic to research for them. Their doctrine at the street level seems to be to blow with the wind of the times.
I for one, and perhaps along with DSeid, find this frightening. It is not like Vatican II put anti-ecumenism (shall we say) to rest in the first place, even in the US. It is my experience with Catholics and Protestants alike that there is a very strong undercurrent that Vatican II was a mistake, that the way things were when their parents were coming of age was better (in the post WWII era e.g.) and that maybe with such a profound shift in Doctrine, it was never fully accepted by the children of the time because the parents were never fully bought in to it either.
This, as the culmination of a long series of posts stuck me as pretty much a thinly veiled threat that “our side is winning, and you better get used to it. Our numbers mean you will have to accept what we give you”.
And GF wonders why I am not comfortable talking to the local priest about these matters when there are maybe 10 Jews in the entire county and a history of recent violent anti-Semitism against some of them.
I agree with the evolution of DSeid’s posts on this thread to date. I think he recognizes the less-thinly veiled threats in the obfuscation due to internal doctrine that is reaching the surface via Sarafeena and MsWas. Sharing doctrinal issues is one thing, but the audacious level of threat that suddenly reared its head is more then disturbing.
This is the true damage and fallout from this episode: That rank and file Christians, not just Catholics can come out of the woodwork with assertions that not only blie a veneer of Ecumenism, but tear them asunder because they find support in those beliefs from the Vatican’s actions. In this day and age, there are plenty of crisis management professionals available to fix this, likely even among the Cardinals themselves. That no such response is forthcoming, I take as a deliberate signal to the MsWasses of the world to start unleashing assertions like the one above.
Not just him.
It is word like that that are the pseudo-doctrinal equivalent to “Just lay back and enjoy it or not, we don’t care, but we are going to take ours from you soon enough so get ready for it.”
Don’t be surprised that the groups you are talking about having a victim mentality have been victims, repeatedly, on Biblical scale, from the beginning of the Bible right up until modern times, and that they have a finely tuned radar for threat sensing.
After all, it sounds like you are suggesting somewhere in the world, a Catholic state will arise, and that part of the foundation of the society there will be reduced to no level of Ecumenism among Jews and others, to put it mildly.
How else should we read the threats from the Vatican Hierarchy that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights in secular governments should refrain from Communion? Based on your (plural you) careful explanations of excommunication at the beginning of the thread, how is that different from a very strong reminder that such an action is one that places one outside the Church, and that as later mentioned several times, ability to partake communion is more important the life itself?
These are how the Vatican is perceived as moving away rapidly from Ecumenism in the real world, where the kerfuffle about the Bishop is only the canary in the coal mine. We demand you remember before you vote in your secular society that we will take away that which is more important to you then your life itself unless you act in our interests rather then your society as a whole. That doesn’t strike anyone as problematical? I don’t think everyone will take the bait, of course, esp. in the US, but I can’t speak for the rest of the world. That is a very powerful and forthrightly blunt message, there is no denying it.
How does it benefit the Jews? Aside from ignoring the ridiculous rhetorical technique of “politics of resentment”, which I reject, I would point out that not just recorded history, but the Bible itself is filled with nothing but story after story of one society, one nation, one group making the Jews a target. It didn’t start with Catholics or any other Christians, but they didn’t put a stop to it in the last 2000 years either.
Unless one is comfortable denying the Biblical scale events of Shoah, in the lifetime of some of us here, and our parents and grandparent for the rest, it is hard to reconcile any of this as less then a veiled threat to do it again given a chance. And of course one way to make that happen is to reconcile a group which insists on no Ecumenism, rolling back modern doctrinal changes, enforcing a top down hierarchy, and then assisting the power of the top of the hierarchy, who holds the key of Communion as more important then life itself to more then a billion people in his hands that in his days as a Hitler Youth are complicit in the Shoah itself.
I am not aware of sufficiently loud and repeated contrition in an effort towards Ecumenism for the current Pope for his past deeds. I am sure he has made it right between him and his God, but for the rest of us, we are still waiting and watching, and this is what we get.
I appreciate what I have learned about the doctrinal issues here - some I knew already, some refines that, and some is new. But forgive me, if like DSeid, I find it less then reassuring in the real world. 
It means precisely what I think it means. I have seen a number of times Christians accused of bigotry for believing that Christianity is the only true religion.
not_alice One person’s finely tuned oppression sensor is another person’s paranoia. In this case I’d argue that it’s the latter and not the former. First and foremost because the holocaust was not committed by the church but by a nationalist teutonic paganism that was in many ways antagonistic to the church also.
Threats? I see no threats. Abortion is a violation of Catholic doctrine. They are asking that people who enable abortion not participate in communion. There is no enforcement, they are not being actively excommunicated, but if they are participating in abortion, then they are not in communion. Communion is a mystical union, if you violate the sacred doctrines you are not in communion. It’s really that simple. It has nothing to do with rewarding or punishing someone. It has to do with you making the choice to step outside of the moral bounds that the church is the maintainer of in this world. A person excommunicates themselves. Excommunication is recognition of a path chosen by the sinner, and not a punishment for sin.
The Catholic church has NEVER been ecumenical in the sense that you are using it. It has been MORE TOLERANT, but that doesn’t equate to ecumenicism. The Catholic church views itself as the only true representative of God on Earth. That has not changed, it didn’t change with Vatican II.
As for Jewish biblical history, it is not the history of Oppression, it’s a history of survival. What sets the Jews apart is not that they have been uniquely oppressed, but that they have uniquely survived oppression time and time again.
BTW, I’m not a Catholic.
And your qualifications for diagnosing paranoia are what again?
Also, and keep this in mind for later in the post too, wasn’t the current Pope, as young Catholic boy, sucked into the machinery of the Holocaust? Why didn’t his faith, his Church, via its leaders and lay folks, find a way to stay out of it? Didn’t they have the Golden Rule then?
And to violate their oath of office to serve everyone in their district. It creates the perception of a conflict of interest, and generally it is the perception as opposed to a real one that is enough to cause problems.
A Legislator maintaining his secular duties to legislate is “involved in abortion”? That’s a stretch. This not being the pit, I will let it go at that.
Read that last sentence aloud 10 times. Then read the first lines of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution aloud 10 times. Read them sequentially right after one another.
See the conflict?
I know some religions don’t allow people to run for office for various reasons. Fine. But what you are suggesting is that for Catholics running for office in not an excommunicatable offense, but legislating according to one’s free will in accordance with the principle of representing the entire district is?
Is it part of Catholic doctrine that governments should not be secular but should be theocratic, and ultimately Catholic? Because it seems a small leap based on what you are saying versus what we actually treasure as Americans of many and no religious faiths together.
But what about the Golden Rule? does the Pope’s representative think that people’s legislators everywhere want to be treated as though they need religious reminders from the Vatican? I am pretty sure that would be a minority view almost everywhere, especially in the US with which I am most familiar. What doctrine, espoused by a religious leader, especially a Pope, allows him to forgo such a basic teaching as convenient and when it is self-serving?
Of course. I understood you from upthread. The message I alluded to about abortion and legislators is clearly a warning, a reminder. I work in marketing for a living, it is my job to persuade the masses too. Let’s not pretend it is something it is not. It is meant to persuade people to act in a way that benefits the persuader against perhaps the best interests of the actor.
And so now you are warning us to get used to the fact that that tolerance was an aberration, the last 45 years or so, and that the grander pattern established over 2000 years is the real deal?
Or might people both in the Church and out have fairly seen Ecumenism as a first step, a building block diplomatically, towards a lasting understanding?
Pretty much every Church and organized religion feels that way. Doesn’t make them right, only set up right for Holy conflict. Most of us represent the value of diplomacy in such matters, and that is what Vatican II represents to the world at large - a recognition of the value of diplomacy in defusing conflict. There is ample historical evidence, both secular and non-secular, to be extremely concerned when groups arbitrarily back away from diplomatic efforts. Trouble is on the way when that happens, almost without fail.
LOL - where exactly did you learn this interpretation?
How can you uniquely survive repeated oppression if you haven’t been repressed a unique number of times?
Do you see the Holocaust as a story of glory and survival of oppression?
By your count, how many times have the Jews been oppressed to the point of survival? Are there lesser times too? What were the circumstances of those oppressions?
Considering they have continued into modern times, are there any skills we can use to detect patterns and head future oppression off diplomatically, or is it ordained that Jews will suffer over and over again? Perhaps until they see the errors of their ways and become Christians?
Should Jews of this and the next generation plan to be oppressed so that when it ends, all will be glorious again for the generations after that?
Yes, you mentioned that upthread. I read the whole thing today.