Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Jewish relations

[mswas]

@not_alice

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?

This is a non sequitur.

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.

Yes, Christianity addresses the conflict of interest pretty directly.

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.

I’m sorry if you can’t have this discussion without getting angry at me. I didn’t make the rules.

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.

Another non-sequitur.

See the conflict?

Yes, Christianity addresses the conflict directly. Service to the world and service to God are drawn in strict delineation.

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?

The Catholic Church takes a pretty hard line on morality. If the discharge of your duty takes you out of communion with Christ then you have to find some way to atone and come back into communion with Christ. It’s not a punishment. You keep thinking it’s a punishment, you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that it’s not a punishment.

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.

Yes, it is pretty clear that the Catholic church would assume authority over secular institutions if it could. America’s protestant inspired secularism is in conflict with the telos of the Catholic Church, plain and simple.

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?

Yes he probably does believe that. He probably only expects Catholic legislators to actually listen however. It is in fact his job to do so, so I’d imagine he thinks that. The bit about the US is a non-sequitur I didn’t quite understand the relevance of.

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.

Right, because you believe the Pope to be an autonomous individual acting out of purely selfish motives, you do not believe him to be a divine representative in any real fashion, so the only way you can really comprehend it is by reducing it to game theory.

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?

Yes. Tolerance is an aberration. You don’t tolerate the views of the Catholic church. No one actually tolerates anyone else’s beliefs. It’s nice to pretend that we do, but no one does. If I think I am right and you are wrong, then why should I tolerate your views? Wrong is inferior to right.

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?

There are theological concerns that are intractable. Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening. Ecumenicism is nice in theory but there are certain things that people find non-negotiable about their faith that they’d need to give up to have a dialogue. Are you willing to accept Christ as the Messiah? If not, well then don’t expect ecumenicism, because you aren’t willing to be ecumenical, why should anyone else?

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.

Well most of them don’t have a bureaucratic hierarchy with over a millenium of unbroken tradition. No one is backing away from diplomatic efforts. At least not on the Catholic side of things. Pope Benedict has made many overtures to the Jews.

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?

The bottom line is most tribes don’t survive such oppression. Most of us are descended from, in some way, tribes whose traditions were utterly wiped out. Go find a Druid and tell him how the Cohenim are from a tribe that has been uniquely oppressed.

Do you see the Holocaust as a story of glory and survival of oppression?

Well yes, ultimately. Jews survived it.

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?

I’m not going to get into a tit for tat with you. Bottom line, very few tribes have survived being overrun by a superior force, sent into disaspora across the world and remained thousands of years later, with an intact culture.

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?

That’s above my pay grade, I’m sorry.

[DSeid]

I need some clarification.

A person excommunicates themselves. Excommunication is recognition of a path chosen by the sinner, and not a punishment for sin.

Really?

Then given that neither Williamson nor other members of the St Pius Traditionalists have changed their path in any way how are they now not excommunicated? Or are they still excommunicated because they are still on the same path but they are now just not recognized as such? Yet the Pope does believe that Catholic politicians who vote Pro-Choice should not take communion. Which sounds like excommunication. Have those politicians excommunicated themselves by taking that path? Are they excommunicated because the Pope has recognized as a class their chosen path of sin? Or are they not excommunicated because the Pope has not chosen to mete out that non-punishment? It honestly does seem confusing to me to say that excommunication is a state a sinner places him or herself in and at the same time as discussing how the Pope can decide who is or is not excommunicated and who should consider themselves as if they were excommunicated but that their excommunication should be only self-enforced.

Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening.

Nah. If I have something to say I say it to your face. This broad brushstroke statement evinces more of a paranoia then you so casually accuse Jews of and is getting close to pulling out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - oh the secret anti-Christian things we Jews do behind closed doors. Regard off.

Sorry but I’ll also decline your portrayal of us as the noble survivors. Our history has included much time as being the identified “other” in the midst and it will continue to include that character. As the perennial identified minority “other” we do tend to be a bit concerned about how majorities desire to deal with the others in their midst. It affects us in very real ways - y’know things like fire bombs at Temples and stuff. Toadying up for good graces has been tried by previous generations and y’know it hasn’t worked out too well. So yeah we will have little patience for those who say they want to get along with us while embracing those who espouse hateful views and we will speak out when we see movements back to historic norms that included persecution of us as standard operating procedure.

Guess what? I don’t have the luxury of copping out that the job of preventing future oppression in my grandchildren’s or their grandchildren’s lifetimes is above my pay grade. Having another generation someday being able to add another notch to the belt of having survived oppression and attempts to destroy them is something that I will work hard to avoid.

And I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you think that concern is “paranoia”.

[tomndebb]

@DSeid

I need some clarification.

A person excommunicates themselves. Excommunication is recognition of a path chosen by the sinner, and not a punishment for sin.

Really?

Then given that neither Williamson nor other members of the St Pius Traditionalists have changed their path in any way how are they now not excommunicated?

I’m not sure that this is a true observation. Certainly, in their public statements, Fellay and some of his subordinates have been spinning this to indicate a “victory” on their part, but this has been a fairly long-term process, carried on almost entirely in private, and I am not sure it is accurate to say that none of them have “changed their path in any way.” There was a lot more to the schism than just the highlights of the Tridentine Mass and the Dignitatis humanae decree and in a series of negotiations that have extended across the better part of a decade, I suspect that there has been genuine movement or the current pope, (not known as a pushover in areas he regards as true), would not have approved the removal of excommunication. Here is an early news release regarding the lifting of the excommunications. It includes the following passage:

A press release from the Vatican quotes the words of a letter from Bishop Fellay to the Holy Father: “we are always firmly determined in the will to remain Catholic and to put all of our energy to the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept Her teachings with filial spirit. We firmly believe in the Primacy of Peter and his prerogatives, and because of that we suffer greatly by the current situation.”

The release continues by explaining that the Holy Father, who has followed the Church’s relationship with SSPX from the beginning, “has always tried to heal the fracture with the Society, even personally meeting Bishop Bernard Fellay,” in August 2005.

“On such occasion, the Supreme Pontiff expressed his will to proceed gradually and in reasonable stages down such path and now, with pastoral concern and fatherly mercy, by means of a decree from the Congregation of Bishops dated January 21, 2009, revokes the excommunication applied to the aforementioned Prelates.”

Now, unlike, mswas, I see no reason why outside groups should be told to hold their tongues on internal RCC matters. While I believe their concerns are not supported by the current facts, I can certainly see where such concerns arise and I see no reason to dismiss them or try to shout them down. It is up to the RCC to demonstrate over the coming years that we have not actually returned to the old ways. Given the records of the last 1800+ years, I can easily see a wary concern as a legitimate response.

[mswas]

@DSeid

I need some clarification.
Really?

Then given that neither Williamson nor other members of the St Pius Traditionalists have changed their path in any way how are they now not excommunicated? Or are they still excommunicated because they are still on the same path but they are now just not recognized as such? Yet the Pope does believe that Catholic politicians who vote Pro-Choice should not take communion. Which sounds like excommunication. Have those politicians excommunicated themselves by taking that path? Are they excommunicated because the Pope has recognized as a class their chosen path of sin? Or are they not excommunicated because the Pope has not chosen to mete out that non-punishment? It honestly does seem confusing to me to say that excommunication is a state a sinner places him or herself in and at the same time as discussing how the Pope can decide who is or is not excommunicated and who should consider themselves as if they were excommunicated but that their excommunication should be only self-enforced.

Don’t conflate the two issues. Excommunication as I understand it is a recognition of a state of disgrace. The Pope isn’t punishing people, he isn’t the one excommunicating them, when he issues the excommunication he is recognizing what he sees as their state of grace.

The difference between the bishops and the politicians:

The Bishops were excommunicated because they were made Bishops outside of papal authority. The excommunication was lifted because they agreed not to serve as Bishops. The reason why the Pope has to do something official is because he has to make it publically known that they are not acting as representatives of the church.

The Politicians are Catholics, not representatives of the church, so the Pope is unconcerned about them leading others astray in the same way as Priests because they are not representatives of the church in the way that Priests are. He asks them not to take communion because they are not acting within the bounds of Catholic morality. He doesn’t make it official because they are not within the church hierarchy.

To put it in a crass way, the Bishops were fired, as they were employees. The Politicians are asked not to take certain services as customers. Don’t take this too literally as it’s a fairly crass metaphor, but maybe it helps you get the idea.

Nah. If I have something to say I say it to your face. This broad brushstroke statement evinces more of a paranoia then you so casually accuse Jews of and is getting close to pulling out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - oh the secret anti-Christian things we Jews do behind closed doors. Regard off.

Maybe you do, but I’ve heard this come from several sources, Jewish friends who told me about it. This Protocols of the Elders of Zion shit that you’re pulling out is incredibly underhanded. If you want to end the debate by pulling out a crude anti-semitism canard then fine I’ll indulge you, but this sort of rude behavior is not something I feel like engaging. Claiming that many Jews find Christianity as a religion silly is hardly the same as saying they have a secret Cabal that controls world banking. So please, let me know if you want to follow this puerile line of garbage, so I know if I should just ignore your future posts.

I’m making a point about mutual disrespect amongst various religions and have no interest in arguing with someone who cannot argue without childish ad hominems.

What is the word for polytheism in hebrew, like ‘shouk’ or something? They don’t believe Christianity to be worshipping the same God because the Trinity is polytheistic.

Sorry but I’ll also decline your portrayal of us as the noble survivors. Our history has included much time as being the identified “other” in the midst and it will continue to include that character. As the perennial identified minority “other” we do tend to be a bit concerned about how majorities desire to deal with the others in their midst. It affects us in very real ways - y’know things like fire bombs at Temples and stuff. Toadying up for good graces has been tried by previous generations and y’know it hasn’t worked out too well. So yeah we will have little patience for those who say they want to get along with us while embracing those who espouse hateful views and we will speak out when we see movements back to historic norms that included persecution of us as standard operating procedure.

Yea you’re missing the point. Most peoples throughout history have been oppressed. I am descended from as much oppression as you are, the only difference is that your tribal tradition has survived, mine has been broken, probably several times in the thousands of years since Exodus.

Go ahead and take as hardline a stance as you like. If not being completely subservient to your opinion is oppression or potential oppression in your mind, then you act as you feel that you need to. Catholicism doesn’t exist to alter how it interacts with its own doctrine based on Jewish political opinion. The ENTIRE POINT of Christianity is an attempt to rehabilitate sinners. Asking the Jewish street which sinners are ok for redemption, and which one’s aren’t is a non-starter. So if you cannot tolerate the Christian notion of redemption when it applies to holocaust deniers, then that’s your choice you don’t have to tolerate Catholicism if you don’t want to.

The reason for bringing them back to communion is the idea that the Eucharist will confer upon them the grace necessary to redeem them. What you are arguing is that they should deny them this redemptive grace because they are not ALREADY redeemed enough to give up their holocaust denial. So what you are being intolerant of is a CORE TENET of Catholicism.

Guess what? I don’t have the luxury of copping out that the job of preventing future oppression in my grandchildren’s or their grandchildren’s lifetimes is above my pay grade. Having another generation someday being able to add another notch to the belt of having survived oppression and attempts to destroy them is something that I will work hard to avoid.

Being intolerant of Catholicism protects your grandchildren in no way. Wailing about it accomplishes nothing, and your refusal to accept the idea that the church itself doesn’t share these views and is trying to redeem the wayward flock. If Benedict’s personal condemnation of these views doesn’t sway you, then you are not going to be swayed by anything. Anyway, your opinion should not be taken into consideration by the church in the pursuit of its spiritual telos.

And I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you think that concern is “paranoia”.

Well the concern does fly in the face of official vatican statements about the holocaust that you want to dismiss the entire church who bends over backwards to try and accomodate Jewish opinion, just because it won’t throw a couple of guys you hate under the bus. It’s clear that you don’t care what people think, that’s made obvious by how you willfully ignore official church policy in favor of your fear of a tiny fringe element.

[DSeid]

Tom nice that you “suspect that there has been genuine movement” … somehow your suspicions fail to meet any standard of evidence that there has been any. I read your cite as evidence that the Pope is committed to healing the schism … period, full stop. If the Church must move to make that happen then so be it.

I suspect that, given the tremendous press these issues have received, and given the statements of “victory” by members of the SSPX, that any change in their path would be shared by the Vatican. Your faith in the Pope’s lack of being a pushover notwithstanding.

That said I think the Pope was surprised by the outrage that this episode provoked from so many corners including not just Jewish leaders but some of his own Cardinals and Merkle. That outrage was justified and had some effect. He’ll be a bit more circumspect in any further moves to reconcile the Church’s positions with those of the SSPX group in the near future at least and without the outcry he would not have been.

[mswas]

@tomndebb

Now, unlike, mswas, I see no reason why outside groups should be told to hold their tongues on internal RCC matters. While I believe their concerns are not supported by the current facts, I can certainly see where such concerns arise and I see no reason to dismiss them or try to shout them down. It is up to the RCC to demonstrate over the coming years that we have not actually returned to the old ways. Given the records of the last 1800+ years, I can easily see a wary concern as a legitimate response.

I don’t think that they should hold their tongues. I think they should actually try to understand it before making condemnations. The two things are hardly the same. They should be able to say whatever they want, but I think it should be irrelevant to the Pope who has publically condemned holocaust denial. What has been expressed here is NOT a wary concern. People are angry that these men are being allowed to eat crackers and drink wine. There really isn’t a sense of proportion at work here.

What I really think is that political opinion should not be a factor when judging whether or not someone can take communion.

[mswas]

DSeid I wonder if you also are aware that adultery results in excommunication. If you are divorced and the divorce is not recognized by the church, and you live with a second wife, you are also not supposed to take communion.

[not_alice]

@mswas

This is a non sequitur.

I snipped the rest of a non-answer

I am torn as to whether you are insulted someone else jumped in at this stage and asked you to further explain the implications of what you wrote repeatedly above, or are deliberately avoiding the same courtesy I extended you in reading and pondering over an entire long and deep thread and asking you for clarifications.

May I ask you to try again please? I don’t understand why all of a sudden you are reduced to suggesting legitimate debate in GD only requires denial of the question and simple declarative sentences. Based on your history in the rest of the thread, I expected much more, certainly more then you attributing to me beliefs I don’t have, you will find no evidence for in other threads I am in, or this one. When I need a spokesperson, I will let you know. In the meantime. let’s just stick to the issues and debate at hand - if you don’t know or don’t wish to answer what is before you, simply say so, that is fine.

Mods - if this is better meant for the Pit, please let me know and I will move it there.

[mswas]

@not_alice

I am torn as to whether you are insulted someone else jumped in at this stage and asked you to further explain the implications of what you wrote repeatedly above, or are deliberately avoiding the same courtesy I extended you in reading and pondering over an entire long and deep thread and asking you for clarifications.

I responded to the parts I saw as not non-sequiturs. If you think my entire post was a non-sequitur well then we are at an impasse. No I am not offended that you joined in. This thread is one of the more interesting on the board.

May I ask you to try again please? I don’t understand why all of a sudden you are reduced to suggesting legitimate debate in GD only requires denial of the question and simple declarative sentences. Based on your history in the rest of the thread, I expected much more, certainly more then you attributing to me beliefs I don’t have, you will find no evidence for in other threads I am in, or this one. When I need a spokesperson, I will let you know. In the meantime. let’s just stick to the issues and debate at hand - if you don’t know or don’t wish to answer what is before you, simply say so, that is fine.

Explain to me what American political rights have to do with communion and then I guess we can try again. You made a comment about finely tuned senses and paranoia. I told you which I thought it was.

[DSeid]

Hmmm … you think that you said that “many Jews find Christianity as a religion silly” - and that such is justified because you have “Jewish friends who told me about it”?

Well what you did say was "Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening. "

Yeah, I’m sure that you do not see any difference between the two statements. And that you have no idea what kind of offense the what the Jews do in their secret meetings kind of talk evokes.

If we were in person right now I’d be stepping out of the room to prevent myself from doing something that I’d like to think I left behind in my youth so I’ll stop this interaction right here for now before I get myself warned or banned. (It would get me banned in the Pit too.)

[mswas]

@DSeid

Hmmm … you think that you said that “many Jews find Christianity as a religion silly” - and that such is justified because you have “Jewish friends who told me about it”?

Well what you did say was "Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening. "

You’re right I should have said, “Some Jews.” in the beginning. But of course this line of reasoning is an obfuscation, it’s an ad hominem accusation of bigotry rather than addressing the actual point you continue to ignore, that there are intractable theological doctrines that cannot simply be diplomatically circumvented.

Yeah, I’m sure that you do not see any difference between the two statements. And that you have no idea what kind of offense the what the Jews do in their secret meetings kind of talk evokes.

You’re just searching for something to be offended about. Good luck with that.

So go ahead feel like a victim of my anti-semitism when I was making a point about theological differences between religions and wasn’t singling Jews out.

I find it’s often easier to feel righteous indignation by cherry-picking from someone’s statements. Righteous Indignation is a powerful opiate and some people just love the feeling of it as it washes over them.

[tomndebb]

@mswas

I find it’s often easier to feel righteous indignation by cherry-picking from someone’s statements. Righteous Indignation is a powerful opiate and some people just love the feeling of it as it washes over them.

I suppose that might be true. Are you speaking from experience, perchance?

It is one thing to disagree about the actual actions taken by third parties or the motives or ramifications of of those actions. It is rtather another thing to decide to attribute (or imply) motives to other posters and make this discussion personal.

[mswas]

@tomndebb

I suppose that might be true. Are you speaking from experience, perchance?

Certainly.

It is one thing to disagree about the actual actions taken by third parties or the motives or ramifications of of those actions. It is rtather another thing to decide to attribute (or imply) motives to other posters and make this discussion personal.

It’s funny how often I am replying to someone attributing motives to me, and you reply to my posts. Are you speaking only to me or are you speaking to DSeid who made the accusations of anti-semitism also?

[tomndebb]

@mswas

It’s funny how often I am replying to someone attributing motives to me, and you reply to my posts. Are you speaking only to me or are you speaking to DSeid who made the accusations of anti-semitism also?

DSeid directly referred to claims of anti-semitism that you had raised in the context of of broad (unsupported) claims you had posted about how “Jews” think. He did not directly accuse you of anti-semitism in the way that you have taken your posts to the personal level, here

As to the frequency with which I reply to your personal attacks, I generally note that you are the first one to infer personal attacks that have not been launched, replying with explicit attacks. If you do not like that attention, then stop behaving in that fashion.

= = =

DSeid, you will refrain from the usage “regard off” in this Forum, given its particular history.

= = =

[ /Moderating ]

[mswas]

Well I guess as the Protocols have been invoked, I shall consider this thread concluded.

[Malthus]

@mswas

There are theological concerns that are intractable. Jews do not respect Christianity. They ridicule it as quaint polytheism whenever they think Christians are not listening. Ecumenicism is nice in theory but there are certain things that people find non-negotiable about their faith that they’d need to give up to have a dialogue. Are you willing to accept Christ as the Messiah? If not, well then don’t expect ecumenicism, because you aren’t willing to be ecumenical, why should anyone else?

Woah. :eek:

First, accepting Christ as Messiah doesn’t make yoy “ecumenical”, it makes you Christian.

Second, I must say you are wrong about “Jews do not respect Christianity”. Maybe some Jews don’t, just as some Christians do not respect Judaism, but the broad statement isn’t supportable.

[straight_man]

@Malthus

Woah. :eek:

First, accepting Christ as Messiah doesn’t make yoy “ecumenical”, it makes you Christian.

Second, I must say you are wrong about “Jews do not respect Christianity”. Maybe some Jews don’t, just as some Christians do not respect Judaism, but the broad statement isn’t supportable.

I think this was (kind of) mswas’s point. Jews and Catholics both have beliefs that simply cannot be reconciled. I might add that the resulting tension — heightened by Christianity’s Jewish origins — is theological, not political, and its resolution neither can nor should come from a change in the fundamental beliefs of either religions. That would be kind of dishonest. Hence, if the RCC is simply administering its beliefs on its members, the political interests of Jews don’t really have a place in that administration, even though those interests are entirely valid. The violent, ongoing debate over how Judaism and Catholicism can establish more comfortable relations (and how) really isn’t the same conversation.

Incidentally, I have a couple of comments on things that have been bothering me in this thread. First, “ecumenism” is not between religions, it’s between sects, as regularly understood. Protestants tend not to be very enthusiastic about the Catholic church having fuzzier relations with Judaism, since it rather pushes the question: “Hey, what about us?” Secondly, not_alice, the RCC in its administration over a type of belief (Catholicism), claims a monopoly on moral behavior. This monopolistic claim is true of any non-relativist system of ethics, which makes it very odd to attack the RCC for making such a claim. Thirdly, Benedict didn’t get any choice about having to join the Nazi Youth, and the various ways he found to express his disagreement have been brought up in this thread already.

[straight_man]

Dang it, forgot to post the quote for the last point:

@not_alice

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?

So, of course, there are several answers to these questions:
-Benedict wasn’t sucked into the “machinery of the Holocaust”, he was forced to join Nazi Youth, participated as little as he could*, and then deserted from the army after he was drafted.
-The RCC did stay out of the Holocaust, which is what they are usually criticized for. Catholics and everyone else today understands that the church had a responsibility to speak out against genocide, and failed to do so.
-More generally, the RCC encouraged anti-semitism throughout European history, and in many cases was responsible for pogroms. However, keep in mind that the current leadership of the RCC was not personally responsible for these events, and in fact has apologized in its role as part of a larger institution.

[FinnAgain]

Nothing really to add to the debate, but I still hope that this won’t count as threadshitting…

Anyways, I still remember going on Project Understanding which was a few years before the trip mentioned in this article but was pretty much the same program. It was an amazing trip and I felt that the Jews and Catholics really connected with each other. Several of the Catholic kids pointed out that they’d never actually met any Jews and had always laughed/joined in when they heard anti-semitic jokes, but that they’d make a point of arguing against that sort of crap when they got back to the US.

It’s a pity that some folks are now seriously entertaining that idea that such an attempt at understanding and accepting diverse religious traditions is not only failed, but pointless. Not enough rolleyes for the claim that part of the reason for that is that an indeterminate number of Jews smacktalk Catholics when they think nobody is listening.

P.S. For what it’s worth, the award the 12 students received that year was the Sheldon Meyers award for Ecumenical Studies, whatever the denotation of ‘ecumenical’ might be.

[straight_man]

@FinnAgain

It’s a pity that some folks are now seriously entertaining that idea that such an attempt at understanding and accepting diverse religious traditions is not only failed, but pointless. Not enough rolleyes for the claim that part of the reason for that is that an indeterminate number of Jews smacktalk Catholics when they think nobody is listening.

Actually, I’m not sure that supporting such a program would tend to support either side of this argument.

Above all, they learned that “interfaith understanding” does not mean pretending that Judaism and Catholicism are the same, despite the many historical and spiritual points of contact between the two faiths, but rather that true understanding comes from acknowledging, exploring and cherishing each other’s differences.

Other than the “cherishing” part, which strikes me as over-the-top in light of the universal applicability of religion, this isn’t particularly different from the purpose of the college I attended. If I’m reading this thread correctly, the current argument is over whether Jews, in light of both their religious separation from Roman Catholics and the history of damage done to the former by the latter, have a valid role to play in the RCC’s self-administration. I would say no, but that doesn’t mean that members of the two beliefs should be hostile. (Nor do I get much of a say either, being Anglican.)

BTW, you’re right that “ecumenical” can refer to stuff between religions — it’s just that it’s so much more commonly used to mean “interdenominational” that I worry we end up thinking they’re the same thing.