Pope's preacher: Accusations akin to anti-Semitism

[baylee]

Pope’s preacher: Accusations akin to anti-Semitism

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png By FRANCES D’EMILIO, Associated Press Writer Frances D’emilio, Associated Press Writer – 31 mins ago
VATICAN CITY – At a solemn Good Friday service, Pope Benedict XVI’s personal preacher likened the tide of allegations that the pontiff has covered up sex abuse cases to the “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” But within hours, facing a storm of criticism at the comparison, the Vatican felt it necessary to distance the pope from the preacher’s remarks.

Both Jewish and victims’ groups responded that it was inappropriate to compare the discomfort being experienced by the church leadership in the sex abuse scandal to the violence that culminated in the Holocaust. The Vatican has been on the defensive in recent days, saying the church has been singled out and collectively stereotyped for the problem of pedophilia, which it says is a society-wide issue.

More:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_re_eu/eu_church_abuse

 

[Rascalking]

Considering the horrors that the Jewish people have been through in their existence, this is no where near anti-semitism.

 

[seanflynn]

**

“The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism,” he said, quoting from the letter.
:**

I think this is the critical point in Fr. Cantalamessa’s homily. I believe that it he is referring to the shameful aspects of the ideology of anti-semitism, not the horrific acts that it has led people to commit. Like the idea of a world-wide conspiracy by jews, and that the worst qualities of one individual are consistent with all of the members of the group. <(Not something I believe, by the way)

There seem to be people attempting to convince us that all priests are creeps and worse, like anti-semites might say that jews control the banks, or worse.

 

[Rascalking]

I think this is the critical point in Fr. Cantalamessa’s homily. I believe that it he is referring to the shameful aspects of the ideology of anti-semitism, not the horrific acts that it has led people to commit. Like the idea of a world-wide conspiracy by jews, and that the worst qualities of one individual are consistent with all of the members of the group. <(Not something I believe, by the way)

There seem to be people attempting to convince us that all priests are creeps and worse, like anti-semites might say that jews control the banks, or worse.

That’s a very good point, and something I don’t disagree with (not that my opinion is law)-however, I still think that anti-semitism term shouldn’t be used.

 

[momor]

On Good Friday Jesus humbly submitted to all of the false accusations and torture inflicted on Him any never gave back any defense of himself.
Why on earth is the pope’s preacher using the occasion of a Good Friday service to defend the pope against the media attacks? Where is the Christ-like example in that?

 

[AnotherVoice]

This sermon merely added fuel to the fire. I wish the Vatican would hire a good crisis management firm to help them formulate a communication strategy.

 

[Bishop93]

That was not a smart move.

Anti-semitism…Really?

God help em’…

 

[Adeodatus]

The preacher was just reporting what was said to him in a letter sent by a Jewish friend. It was the Jewish friend who was making these associations.

I think what the Jewish person being quoted was trying to say is that calumnies which result from socially-accepted bigotry can be very damaging. He was right about that, but of course his point is too subtle (6th grade level at least!) for the MSM. Shalom.

 

[canadianguy1143]

The preacher was just reporting what was said to him in a letter sent by a Jewish friend. It was the Jewish friend who was making these associations.

I think what the Jewish person being quoted was trying to say is that calumnies which result from socially-accepted bigotry can be very damaging. He was right about that, but of course his point is too subtle (6th grade level at least!) for the MSM. Shalom.

Source for this information?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

This sermon merely added fuel to the fire. I wish the Vatican would hire a good crisis management firm to help them formulate a communication strategy.

Frankly, this statement shows how terribly out of touch those in the Vatican are. They and their bishops around the world need to drop the reflexive defenseness that got them into this mess in the first place.

The pope should let his actions be his defense. He is an old man, with wisdom and wit. He is being badly served by his advisors.

Let us pray that they may see what the world around them sees. Then that they may act the way angels guide them to act.

 

[Image_of_God]

Source for this information?

It’s in the article.

 

[Dwyer]

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQWrzPjAEtxgfa_tARqu5413A4PAD9ER5QNG1

First of all, the Pope’s Franciscan preacher didn’t say “accusations are akin to Anti-Semitism”, as blared in the AP’s headlines.

It was the Preacher’s friend who said that; the Preacher quoted from a letter written to him by a Jewish friend, who stated:

I am following with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the Church, the Pope and all the faithful by the whole world. The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism. Therefore I desire to express to you personally, to the Pope and to the whole Church my solidarity as Jew of dialogue and of all those that in the Jewish world (and there are many) share these sentiments of brotherhood.

It is not that the accusations are akin to Anti-Semitism, but it is the stereotyping by the News Media of all Catholic priests, including Catholic priests who are not guilty of any crime, as child molesters and as bad people, that reminds the Preacher’s Jewish friend of Anti-Semitic propaganda.

Secondly, the Preacher never said the following, as claimed by the AP:

Cantalamessa in his sermon said there was no need to dwell on the scandals

.

He only said the violence against children is being talked about sufficiently in the outside world :

However there is a yet more grave and widespread violence than that of youth in stadiums and squares. I am not speaking here of violence against children, of which unfortunately also elements of the clergy are stained; of that there is sufficient talk outside of here. I am speaking of violence to women. This is an occasion to make persons and institutions that fight against it understand that Christ is their best ally

Most of the homily is about violence: the violence that Christ suffered on the Cross, and the violence that is currently pervasive throughout modern societies and modern entertainment.

The Preacher talks some length about domestic violence inflicted on women.

The Preacher states that there is physical and verbal violence (violence with the tongue).

The part of the sermon referring to Jewish people only occurs in the final two and a half paragraphs:

“By a rare coincidence, this year our Easter falls on the same week of the Jewish Passover which is the ancestor and matrix within which it was formed. This pushes us to direct a thought to our Jewish brothers. They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms. I received in this week the letter of a Jewish friend and, with his permission, I share here a part of it.”

This preacher cannot talk about a letter that a Jewish friend sent to him which expressed sympathy towards the Catholic Church?

Is the News Media now going to censor Catholic homilies?

I think it was appropriate for him to talk about it, briefly, since these news stories about the Catholic Church are on leading stories on most online news websites.

You can see how the Associated Press, in my opinion, has twisted around and has even made up and exaggerates things the Preacher never said.

Here’s the full text of the Preacher’s sermon:

cantalamessa.org/en/predicheView.php?id=354

 

[s4angel]

So, how did anti-semitism begin? was it not in baseless allegations? I am not saying that the travesty of a priest commiting these crimes against persons who were dependant to them for their spiritual welfare are blameless, quite the opposite. Anyone who would hurt a child, any child needs to be convicted. What I am saying is that the head of our church has been more outspoken, has done more than anyone to see these little lambs of God are given Justice! Yet he is accused by popular press, lied about by those that hate our faith, and by such has painted our faith even our congregation as one big mass of pediphiles or children hunters. We are looked down on those that don’t understand that those “antiques” in the Vatican are spiritual Icons. Those physical pieces we hold of someone, our saints. are the perfection of faith we all strive with all of our being to emulate? How is that different?

Do we not live a different life? Are we not called to be higher than the beasts? Do we not have the same call as those that were hated before just for being the children of God? How, please tell me how this is different. How many more thousands will it take for you to accept that this is truley the same? Hated because we are different?

Yes there will always be those that pray on the innocent, Just as there are those who call themselves teachers who pray on our children ( in greater number I might add). How is that any different?

 

[Abba]

I think it was a nice sermon.

Father Cantalamessa quoted from a letter he received from a Jewish friend. In the letter his friend writes that the attacks on the Pope, the Church and laity reminds him of the more shameful aspects of anti-semitism. Precisely what it reminds him of is:

“The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt…”

The priests who committed those horrible crimes were the ones that committed them. They were personally responsible for their actions yet the guilt is being extended to the Pope, the Church and the laity. This is true. Father Cantalamessa’s friend was not equating the suffering of the Jewish people to that of the Pope, the Church and the laity but is noting the similarity in psychology.

Some will argue that many members of the clergy in general should be held responsible due to the fact that they did not react more quickly once notified of a crime or that they did not denounced the priest/s committing the crimes to the civil authority. I think we need to consider the fact that it was only in recently history that we have come to understand the psychology of a peadophile. In the United States, for instance, child molesters up to recently history were given a prison sentence and released without further ado. It was in the late seventies and early eighties that I began to read about how data was revealing that child molesters after their prison sentences would offend again. I would be nice for this information to come out in the light more. It was not just the Catholic Church that was mishandling the child molester cases it was every other government body in the world. In the seventies people thought that this psychological inclination could be remedied by therapy and even that was an advanced recognition.

The fact of the matter is that the clergy of the Catholic Church is not and has not been collectively protecting child molester and consciously allowing them positions of authority where they would have access to innocent children. The non-child molesters who were responsible were doing their best according to the knowledge they had.

I am disappointed how disrespectful and inconsiderate the media can be - even on Good Friday.

Father Cantalamessa’s Homily"

zenit.org/article-28840?l=english

Peace,

Abba

 

[Zatzat]

This sermon merely added fuel to the fire. I wish the Vatican would hire a good crisis management firm to help them formulate a communication strategy.

You sir, are correct.

Comparing recent events in the media to antisemitism was a colossal and insulting error.

 

[Zatzat]

So, how did anti-semitism begin?

Christianity.

 

[Dale_M]

So, how did anti-semitism begin?

Sporadic anti-semitism occurred before Christianity took hold, but the Christian Church had a lot to do with making it commonplace.

By the second century C.E., both Judaism and Christianity were trying to distinguish each from the other in the eyes of Rome, as both had unique political concerns. Judaism by then had attained legal status in the Roman world as a religion and did not want Christianity, with its loyalty to a King other than Caesar, to be associated with it. The church, now largely Gentile, also wanted to obtain legal status in the eyes of Rome so that it would not be identified with the Jews, who had rebelled against Rome under Bar Kochba. Once it was clear to Rome that Christianity was not a sect of Judaism, Christianity was regarded as an illegal sect and was no longer under the protective umbrella of the legal status of Judaism. With the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine in the fourth century, however, Christianity soon began to enjoy a position of superiority over Judaism which caused serious consequences for Judaism. The new “Christian” empire began to enact such changes as:

* The removal of former religious and governing privileges
* The curtailment of Rabbinical jurisdiction
* Prohibition of missionary work
* Jews were no longer allowed to hold high offices or have military careers (e.g. legislation in 537 C.E. which prohibited local Jewish people from serving on municipal bodies).

Negative theological attitudes began to abound, such as the idea that Jews had lost their right to exist; Jews only exist as a testimony to the truth of Christianity; Jews are suffering justly at the hands of the Gentiles because God is angry with them, etc. Various church councils drew up damaging anti-Jewish legislation such as:

* banning contact with Jews
* the forbidding of the reading of the Torah exclusively in Hebrew (553 C.E.) (see Parkes, 251ff, 392).
* confiscation of Jewish property and the prohibition of the sale of Christian property to Jews (545 C.E.).

Subsequent writings by church fathers (and church leaders throughout church history) condemned Jews, accusing them of being idolaters, torturers, spiritually deaf, blasphemers, gluttons, adulterers, canibals, Christ-killers, and beyond God’s forgiveness. Church Father John Chrysostom in particular pushed the idea of Jewish sensuality, gluttony, stubbornness and rejection by God.

remember.org/History.root.classical.html

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Here’s what one very real Jew actually said:

Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, who was host to Benedict at the Rome synagogue in January on a visit that helped calm waters after a year of tensions, laughed in seeming disbelief when asked about Father Cantalamessa’s remarks.

“With a minimum of irony, I will say that today is Good Friday, when they pray that the Lord illuminate our hearts so we recognize Jesus,” Rabbi Di Segni said, referring to a prayer in the traditional Catholic liturgy calling for the conversion of the Jews. “We also pray that the Lord illuminate theirs.”

Here’s what some possibly fictitious anonymous Catholics said:

Last week, the center-left daily newspaper La Repubblica wrote , without attribution, that “certain Catholic circles” believed the criticism of the church stemmed from “a New York ‘Jewish lobby.”

And here’s what a very real Catholic said that a possibly fictitious anonymous Jew said:

Then he quoted from what he said was a letter from a Jewish friend he did not identify.

“I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful by the whole world,” he said the friend wrote. “The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

Funnily enough… I agree with what that letter supposedly said. The Church has no collective guilt as an institution about the child rapes. The cover-ups though… the “aiding and abetting”… let’s just say that that is at the very least, debateable.

Would it surprise anyone if there really were people in “Catholic circles” - even in Very Senior “Catholic circles” - who blamed the Jews for all the bad publicity the Church has got? Would it surprise anyone here if these hypothetical Very Senior members of Catholic circles turned out to have been a part and parcel of both the sexual assaults, and the cover-ups afterwards? I’m not saying they exist - to do that I’d have to have some actual evidence, you know? - I’m asking if anyone here would be surprised if that was the case.

How did we get into this place?

 

[Sonny1954]

The Vatican can’t be serious when they make this comparison…well actually, I’m afraid they are. Thank Heaven there is a distinct difference between the beauty that is Catholicism and the political administration of the Catholic Church.

 

[WesPilgrim]

I’ve got to say that while watching the crucial part of Fr. Cantalamessa’s homily on TV, I had no inkling of the backlash that has since ensued. I saw a dear priest offer some consolation toward his pontiff/parishioner by quoting from an actual Jewish friend’s letter of support (with permission of the source). The portion read — in my liberal paraphrase— ‘We’ve been smeared by the elites for a long, long time (we’re experts!), sadly that’s what you’re now getting.’

Fr. Cantalamessa is guilty of bad media savvy, nothing else.

If one desires spin and political correctness from their shepherds, there are dozens of milk-toast, old-line denominations that have little of salvific value left to offer humankind, and consequently they are no longer feared or attacked by the opinion elites.
(I used to work for one.)
Thanks for letting me vent.
blessings, Wes