Disappearing Middle Eastern Christians, Disappointing Bishops
October 25, 2010
David P. Goldman
“Catholic Church: Christ nullified God’s promises to the Jews,” reads the headline on the Israel Today website. That is not quite true: At the just-concluded Synod of Middle East Bishops, a cleric from the tiny group of Melkite Greeks, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, made such a statement on behalf of the Melkites, not the Catholic Church.
The head of the same church, the Syrian-based Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, also attacked priestly celibacy before the Synod. He wasn’t speaking for Rome, either. Clerical marriage hasn’t helped the Melkites; they claim just 1.3 million members worldwide, fewer than the Korean Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea. Their actual numbers are much smaller.
The concerns of Greek Christians will fade before long, for in two or three generations there will be no Greek Christians in the Middle East, nor indeed Christians of any sort in the Middle East. Nor, for that matter, will there be many Greeks; with a fertility rate of only 1.37 children per female, one of the world’s lowest, Greece by mid-century will have a population two-thirds of which exceeds the age of sixty, and very little population at all by the end of the century. In a hundred years, modern Greek will be a dying language.
Israeli Jews, by contrast, have the highest fertility of any first-world population, and not only because of the fecund ultra-Orthodox; fertility among secular Israelis is far above replacement. By 2100, eighteen centuries after Constantine founded the Greek empire, more people will speak Hebrew than Greek.
Jews might well ignore the sepulchral voice of a dying ethnic church, except for one fact: The Melkite cleric in question, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, headed the commission that drafted the Synod’s final statement. Speaking personally and not for the Synod he said, “The theme of the promised land cannot be used as a basis to justify the return of the Jews to Israel and the expatriation of the Palestinians. . . . For Christians one can no longer talk of the land promised to the Jewish people,” because the “promise” was “abolished by the presence of Christ . . . there is no longer a favored people, a chosen people; all men and women of every country have become the chosen people.”
Middle Eastern Christians are hostage to a hostile Muslim majority, and to Iran in particular. Lebanese Maronites, the largest surviving community, were a majority by design when France established the present Lebanese state after World War I as a Catholic enclave. Infertility and immigration have reduced Maronite numbers to perhaps 30 percent, although political sensitivities have forbid census-taking for a generation. If Iran’s proxy army, the Hezbollah, wished to, it could slaughter the Christians on any given morning. That is why the most prominent Lebanese Christian leader, Michel Aoun, is allied to Hezbollah, against the Saudi- and American-backed Sunni opposition.
It is hardly news that Middle Eastern Christians (except for the growing community of Hebrew-speaking Christians) hate Israel. They blame the Israeli-Arab conflict for the deterioration of their position. Arab Christians, moreover, played a prominent role in Arab nationalist movements; they are Arabs first, that is, and Christians second.
The ambitions of Arab Christians grew after the Turks killed or expelled close to four million Greek and Armenian Orthodox Christians between 1915 and 1923; these groups once comprised a fifth of the population of Anatolian Turkey and dominated the Christian presence in the Middle East, as I wrote last year in an essay entitled “The Closing of the Christian Womb in the Middle East.”
It seems incongruous that the leader of a tiny ethnic group that lectures Rome on the merits of priestly marriage would draft the final statement of a Vatican Synod on the Middle East. The trouble is that among the twelve million Christians left in the Middle East, it is hard to find a leader who does not reflect the rage and desperation of a community on its way to extinction.
Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has said that the Election of Israel cannot be changed; his October 25 homily at the close of the Synod would have been a good time to reiterate this position. The pope did not take the opportunity to do so. The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder of First Things, wisely argued that the Election of Israel should be incorporated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; it remains a papal opinion rather than a Magisterial ruling, and may be repudiated by a different pope in the future.
The Church’s anguish at the catastrophic decline of Christianity in the region of its birth and first expansion is palpable. The problem, as I explained in the “Christian womb” essay, is that Middle Eastern Christians won’t have children and won’t stand their ground. Nothing that Israel might possibly do will change this; the best Israel can do, as I wrote in a recent “On the Square” article, “Israeli Christians: Uncomfortable Minority, Mutual Opportunity,” is to foster the only expanding Middle Eastern Christian community, namely Hebrew-speaking Israeli Christians.
In August 2009, a senior official at the Vatican’s Secretariat of State received me in a small conference room on the third floor of the Secretariat building, near the papal apartments. “The Holy Father,” he explained, “feels a strong pastoral responsibility toward Christian communities in the Middle East.” Benedict XVI, he added, hopes that Christians in the Middle East will provide the “leaven” for a cultural revival among some of the world’s most backward societies. Given Jewish experience, I replied, the Church would do better to get its people out while there still was time.
As we talked, we passed through the gallery that Raphael had decorated in the “grotesque” style adapted from Nero’s palace, then just excavated, and stood on the terrace overlooking St. Peter’s Basilica. The subject changed; my host mentioned that new documents showed the deep concern of Pope Pius XII over the murder of European Jews, and hoped that I, as a Jewish journalist, would write about them.
I demurred. Pius XII was a good man, not a bad one, in my view then and now; under the terrible circumstances of the Second World War, he did what he could to save Jews while avoiding an open confrontation with the Nazi regime. An open denunciation of the Nazis probably would have led to his martyrdom and a Nazi-driven schism. He had every reason to expect the Nazi regime to last for a long time and wanted the Church to continue ministering to the spiritual needs of Catholics.
Evidently he failed to appreciate the full horror of Nazi intentions until the storm was upon him, but that was true of most of the East European rabbinate as well. When the secular Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky toured Poland in the late 1930s begging Jews to get out while they still could, he found little support from religious leaders.
Walter Cardinal Kasper, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, put it very well last May when he said that the Catholic Church had weakened itself by “cutting itself off from its Jewish roots for centuries . . . a weakness that became evident in the altogether too feeble resistance against the persecution of the Jews.”
At the time, I wrote that Jews should accept this statement “in full satisfaction of their grievance against the wartime Vatican.” The “Jewish roots” of the Church, as Franz Rosenzweig argued, are the Jews themselves; without the living Jewish people, Jewish Scripture would be reduced to another Gnosis in short order. And to separate the Jewish people from the Promised Land is an absurdity. For two thousand years we prayed thrice daily for God to gather our exiles from the four corners of the world and return us to Zion.
Pius XII might have taken the heroic step of excommunicating Hitler, or ordering priests to refuse communion to German soldiers and their auxiliaries engaged in the murder of non-combatants. Instead, he chose to work behind the scenes to save lives. Ultimately, Pius XII chose not to sacrifice the Church’s ongoing care for its flock in a desperate gamble of this kind.
With hindsight, one might speculate that things would have turned out better for the Church if he had done so. Christianity is fading in all of Europe except Poland, and Poland’s startling rate of population decline does not bode well for the future. If the wartime Vatican had taken a moral stand against Nazism, the outcome might or might not have been different; the Church might have emerged from the war with the moral authority to stand against the secular tide that has swamped it. But there was no way for Pius XII to have known this in 1943.
That was 1943. In 2010, the Church should have learned better. I thought it had. When then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s interview book The Salt of the Earth appeared in 1996, I read it with wonder: the future pope wrote, “Perhaps we must take leave of the concept of a popular church.” He added that the Church might shrink to small, seemingly insignificant cells, which nonetheless work for the good:
We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world.
This statement provoked scandalized comment in the German media; I first learned of the book from a news article in Germany’s leading newsweekly, Der Spiegel, which considered this headline news.
A prince of the Church with the courage to abandon the shell of the institution and fight on principle, I thought, would have done better than Pius XII. Here is a German who learned the lesson that one should fight on issues of faith and trust the outcome to God. I hailed his election as Pope in my then-pseudonymous “Spengler” columns so enthusiastically that many readers mistook me for a Catholic.
When as Pope Benedict XVI he addressed irrationality in Islam at his September 2006 Regensburg address, and personally received the convert Magdi Allam into the Church in 2008, I saw in these actions hope for a rebirth of the decaying West. And I was gratified that other Jewish journalists, for example Azure magazine editor Assaf Sagiv, came to view Benedict as a friend and ally of the Jewish people.
And I still believe that Benedict XVI is our friend. It is hard to avoid the impression that he has tired after swimming so far against the tide. What remains of Middle Eastern Christian leadership is beholden to Iran. The Vatican foreign service comes from the same social strata as the bureaucrats of the European Commission, and shares their hostility to the inconvenient Jewish state. Among Western European political leaders, Israel’s best friend is the Lutheran pastor’s child Angela Merkel.
And that is why the Synod of Bishops on the Middle East is such a disappointment, including the Holy Father’s bland homily at the end of the Synod on October 25. The Jewish people face the prospect of a new Holocaust at the hands of Iran, which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens as brazenly as ever did Hitler. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, millions of Jews may burn, again. Iran’s proxies have ringed Israel with missiles on its northern and southern borders, the recompense Israel received for ending its occupation of Gaza and southern Lebanon.
And now the Middle Eastern bishops’ Synod demands that Israel end its “occupation” of the West Bank, which as a practical matter means that Iranian proxies would install missiles on hilltops a dozen miles from Tel Aviv.
Just as in World War II, Catholic communities are hostage to an evil power that proposes to wipe out the Jewish people. Just as in World War II, the first concern of the Church is to maintain its ministry under adverse conditions. Just as in World War II, some elements of the Church make common cause with this evil power to buy temporary security for their own communities.
The anguish of the Church, its unwillingness to let go a foothold in the Holy Land, and its pastoral concern for its beleaguered flock, all are understandable. Jews should temper their disappointment with understanding. But the facts on the ground are what they are. The Christians of the Middle East long since failed of their own infertility, and would decline even if they did not face persecution from Muslims. Giving a big voice to a little man like Archbishop Bustros will do nothing to help them. But silence in the face of evil increases the likelihood of war.
David P. Goldman is a senior editor at First Things and the “Spengler” columnist for the Asia Times. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES:
David Goldman's The Closing of the Christian Womb.
His Israeli Christians: Uncomforable Minority, Mutual Opportunity.
His Cardinal Kasper: Church Was “Too Feeble” to Resist the Persecution of the Jews
His reflection on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's election as pope, Ratzinger's Mustard Seed.
His Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and Eternal Life.
His report on Magdi Allam's reception into the Catholic Church, The Mustard Seed in Global Strategy.
His Azure on Coming to Terms with Christianity”.
Benedict XVI's Homily at the end of the Middle East Synod.
Comments:
10.25.2010 | 5:38am
sanpietrini says:
I have often thanked God that the Holocaust was something my parents and grandparents had to deal with, not me.
I have prayed that we have learned enough to make sure that horror can never happen again.
Did I speak too soon?
I have prayed that we have learned enough to make sure that horror can never happen again.
Did I speak too soon?
10.25.2010 | 7:06am
Stuart Koehl says:
You have no idea how insulting I, as a Melkite Greek Catholic, find this entire screed. Mayhaps Goldman might have consulted a couple of short histories of the both the Melkite Patriarchate and the Eastern Catholic Churches more broadly, before uttering such ill-informed comments.
But David knows where I live, and can contact me directly if he wants to discuss this further.
But David knows where I live, and can contact me directly if he wants to discuss this further.
10.25.2010 | 7:30am
Lifeofthemind says:
In 1967 Moshe Dayan intended to effect the annexation of Bethlehem into Israel. Due to a clerical, in the secular sense, error that did not happen. The golden moment passed and the Christian inhabitants of Bethlehem have been expelled. The occupation and desecration of the Basilica made unambiguously clear what the fate of the Church will be under Islamic rule.
Israel's effort to cast itself as the protector of religious minorities in the region foundered in Lebanon. This happened for several reasons, the weakness and disunion of the Christian community and the poor handling and alienation of Walid Jumblat and the Druse eventually snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory. Another Golden moment passed.
America was not ready and even under Reagan withdrew after encountering the murderous rage that destroyed the Marine barracks. It took the Americans almost another 20 years more to assimilate the doctrines that lead to our engagement in Iraq. Unfortunately the enemies of Western Civilization used that time also and their corruption of the elites in Europe and America advanced far enough to possibly again snatch a defeat for the West. Five years ago there was another golden moment that passed when America had the forces available to crush the Alawite Shia proxy National Socialist Ba'ath regime in Syria and transform the Middle East. Lebanon had its Cedar Revolution but the tide ebbed.
How many bites at the apple will those fighting for the legacy of Judeo-Christian Civilization get? On the tactical level there is some hope in Israel's warming ties with Greece, and possibly with the Eastern Orthodox and Slavic world. Three times in 44 years there have been opportunities to free the captive Christians of the Levant and forge an alliance between Christians and Jews that could have served as a model to the masses in the Middle East seeking some alternative to brutal, corrupt, and arbitrary polities they are subject to. Under the tutelage of al-Jazeera even the American campaign in Iraq is perceived as a failure by a weak and divided nation. In the absence of a convincing victory by the West the inhabitants will turn to the "strong horse' of al-Qaeda's Salafism or Iran's apocalyptic Shia Islam.
There may be one last chance as Iran pushes Israel to the existential wall to change the dynamic. This may be the time to swing for the fences because the alternative is retreat and defeat and the extermination of millions while the survivors face eventual subjugation by an ideology whose long night,will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science..
Israel's effort to cast itself as the protector of religious minorities in the region foundered in Lebanon. This happened for several reasons, the weakness and disunion of the Christian community and the poor handling and alienation of Walid Jumblat and the Druse eventually snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory. Another Golden moment passed.
America was not ready and even under Reagan withdrew after encountering the murderous rage that destroyed the Marine barracks. It took the Americans almost another 20 years more to assimilate the doctrines that lead to our engagement in Iraq. Unfortunately the enemies of Western Civilization used that time also and their corruption of the elites in Europe and America advanced far enough to possibly again snatch a defeat for the West. Five years ago there was another golden moment that passed when America had the forces available to crush the Alawite Shia proxy National Socialist Ba'ath regime in Syria and transform the Middle East. Lebanon had its Cedar Revolution but the tide ebbed.
How many bites at the apple will those fighting for the legacy of Judeo-Christian Civilization get? On the tactical level there is some hope in Israel's warming ties with Greece, and possibly with the Eastern Orthodox and Slavic world. Three times in 44 years there have been opportunities to free the captive Christians of the Levant and forge an alliance between Christians and Jews that could have served as a model to the masses in the Middle East seeking some alternative to brutal, corrupt, and arbitrary polities they are subject to. Under the tutelage of al-Jazeera even the American campaign in Iraq is perceived as a failure by a weak and divided nation. In the absence of a convincing victory by the West the inhabitants will turn to the "strong horse' of al-Qaeda's Salafism or Iran's apocalyptic Shia Islam.
There may be one last chance as Iran pushes Israel to the existential wall to change the dynamic. This may be the time to swing for the fences because the alternative is retreat and defeat and the extermination of millions while the survivors face eventual subjugation by an ideology whose long night,will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science..
10.25.2010 | 8:21am
pdn Michael says:
A compelling article as always; the correlations you suggest with the 1940's are certainly discomforting.
However, I would challenge just a few things. First of all, and of course it may be pettifogging, but St. Peter's is a Basilica but I don't believe it is a "cathedral." The cathedral in Rome is St. John Lateran and St. Peter's is one of the four papal basilicas but not the "see" church.
The other has to do with Constantine's having "founded the Greek empire." I believe Constantine considered himself a Roman; he named his new capital "New Rome." Also, I believe, the official language of the Court of the Roman empire, from the time Constantine moved the capital out of the swamps and on east until it's fifteenth century demise, was Latin. "Greek" was the prevailing Christian Orthodoxy and was also the language of the street, but it is not true that Constantine, whether accidentally or by intent, founded a "Greek" empire.
However, I would challenge just a few things. First of all, and of course it may be pettifogging, but St. Peter's is a Basilica but I don't believe it is a "cathedral." The cathedral in Rome is St. John Lateran and St. Peter's is one of the four papal basilicas but not the "see" church.
The other has to do with Constantine's having "founded the Greek empire." I believe Constantine considered himself a Roman; he named his new capital "New Rome." Also, I believe, the official language of the Court of the Roman empire, from the time Constantine moved the capital out of the swamps and on east until it's fifteenth century demise, was Latin. "Greek" was the prevailing Christian Orthodoxy and was also the language of the street, but it is not true that Constantine, whether accidentally or by intent, founded a "Greek" empire.
10.25.2010 | 8:33am
David Mills says:
A basilica, right. Thank you, pdn Michael. A bit of trivia: I'm told that the three basilicas in Rome itself are legally part of the Vatican, not Italy.
10.25.2010 | 8:45am
David Goldman says:
Patrick,
Nowhere did I suggest that the Vatican should save Israel; on the contrary, as Cardiinal Kasper said to clearly, the Church had so weakened itself by abandoning its Jewish roots that it was powerless during World War II. As I wrote, the issue, rather, is whether the Church will save itself: if the Jewish people (the "Jewish roots" of the Church) are destroyed, branch and leaf will wither. But there is a global campaign to de-legitimize the State of Israel, and the Vatican still has a big voice: to demand simply that Israel end the "occupation" contributes to this campaign.
Mr. Koehl,
You're not supposed to like it. Archbishop Bustros' claim that the Election of Israel has been canceled is not a good starting point for discussion.
Nowhere did I suggest that the Vatican should save Israel; on the contrary, as Cardiinal Kasper said to clearly, the Church had so weakened itself by abandoning its Jewish roots that it was powerless during World War II. As I wrote, the issue, rather, is whether the Church will save itself: if the Jewish people (the "Jewish roots" of the Church) are destroyed, branch and leaf will wither. But there is a global campaign to de-legitimize the State of Israel, and the Vatican still has a big voice: to demand simply that Israel end the "occupation" contributes to this campaign.
Mr. Koehl,
You're not supposed to like it. Archbishop Bustros' claim that the Election of Israel has been canceled is not a good starting point for discussion.
10.25.2010 | 8:57am
Stuart Koehl says:
Latin remained the legal and administrative language of the Roman Empire down to the beginning of the 7th century, when, under the pressure of the Persian invasions, the Emperor Heraclius declared (in the interests of clarity and rapidity of communication) that Greek was now the official language. Most Byzantine historians date the emergence of a Greek "Byzantine" culture and empire to the period in the immediate aftermath of the Muslim conquest of the Middle East and much of Anatolia.
Goldman also errs in thinking the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is, well, "Greek". As I can attest from personal knowledge, its members are descendants of the Syro-Phoenician-Greek population of the Roman Middle East, even though they refer to themselves as "Arab Christians". Due to Sharia laws regarding marriage and religion, they have hardly a drop of Arab blood in them. The only thing they share with the Arabs is the language. This makes them, for the most part, much more "Greek" (Hellenic) than the Greeks, who, due to a variety of conquests and occupations, are now an ethnic stew of Slavs, Bulgars and Turks, with a residual veneer of Hellene. As far as the Greek Orthodox Church and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (or its Orthodox counterpart, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) are concerned, the only thing they share are their theology, spirituality and liturgical rite. Like most westerners, Goldman shows striking ignorance of Eastern Church history, doctrine or current affairs.
Goldman also errs in thinking the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is, well, "Greek". As I can attest from personal knowledge, its members are descendants of the Syro-Phoenician-Greek population of the Roman Middle East, even though they refer to themselves as "Arab Christians". Due to Sharia laws regarding marriage and religion, they have hardly a drop of Arab blood in them. The only thing they share with the Arabs is the language. This makes them, for the most part, much more "Greek" (Hellenic) than the Greeks, who, due to a variety of conquests and occupations, are now an ethnic stew of Slavs, Bulgars and Turks, with a residual veneer of Hellene. As far as the Greek Orthodox Church and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (or its Orthodox counterpart, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) are concerned, the only thing they share are their theology, spirituality and liturgical rite. Like most westerners, Goldman shows striking ignorance of Eastern Church history, doctrine or current affairs.
10.25.2010 | 9:16am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
I can well understand that in some quarters the bishop's remarks have caused consternation, but speaking as a Christian I would have to say that they were both true and timely.
We say that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, and of the whole world through them, but he said that his kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, no patch of this Earth is any more or less Promised Land than any other patch. The Promised Land is in Heaven, and it is promised to everyone.
The Church has made clear abundantly for her whole history that the Jews are Christ's Chosen People because his promise to them can never be revoked. So Jews living in Palestine are Chosen People and Jews living in Tashkent are Chosen People. The have been chosen to be the instrument of his promise. Jesus however also made clear that this promise, the promise made to the Jewish people, has been fulfilled, as the bishop said. The Messiah has come into the world, starting in Jerusalem.
Now, as for the Jews now citizens of the State of Israel, and for the State itself: John Paul stated quite clearly that the State of Israel has a right to exist. It does not have the right to deprive the Arabs in Palestine of their natural rights, but that is in fact the policy of this State. We westerners have proclaimed the separation of Church and State. Pope Gelasius proclaimed it in the year 575 a.d. Israel too is included in that legal doctrine. Israel is not a religion, it is a state which must serve all its citizens, or in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, all those unfortunates whose lives are dependent on the actions of the state. This is simple, natural law binding on all people.
The world is engaged in a vast conflict, part of which centers around the State of Israel and around its future. The number of crimes that have been committed by this war, and the vaster number yet to be committed, will surely earn His wrath on all of us. I don't think that the Persian people are meriting any special condemnation. I think they have the right of self determination that generations of Western meddling and manipulation have denied them in the past. But I think that those of us who proclaim the Scriptures and who love justice must, like the bishop, practice the truth at whatever cost.
We say that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, and of the whole world through them, but he said that his kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, no patch of this Earth is any more or less Promised Land than any other patch. The Promised Land is in Heaven, and it is promised to everyone.
The Church has made clear abundantly for her whole history that the Jews are Christ's Chosen People because his promise to them can never be revoked. So Jews living in Palestine are Chosen People and Jews living in Tashkent are Chosen People. The have been chosen to be the instrument of his promise. Jesus however also made clear that this promise, the promise made to the Jewish people, has been fulfilled, as the bishop said. The Messiah has come into the world, starting in Jerusalem.
Now, as for the Jews now citizens of the State of Israel, and for the State itself: John Paul stated quite clearly that the State of Israel has a right to exist. It does not have the right to deprive the Arabs in Palestine of their natural rights, but that is in fact the policy of this State. We westerners have proclaimed the separation of Church and State. Pope Gelasius proclaimed it in the year 575 a.d. Israel too is included in that legal doctrine. Israel is not a religion, it is a state which must serve all its citizens, or in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, all those unfortunates whose lives are dependent on the actions of the state. This is simple, natural law binding on all people.
The world is engaged in a vast conflict, part of which centers around the State of Israel and around its future. The number of crimes that have been committed by this war, and the vaster number yet to be committed, will surely earn His wrath on all of us. I don't think that the Persian people are meriting any special condemnation. I think they have the right of self determination that generations of Western meddling and manipulation have denied them in the past. But I think that those of us who proclaim the Scriptures and who love justice must, like the bishop, practice the truth at whatever cost.
10.25.2010 | 9:20am
Maria V. says:
Thank you too , for evoking sentiments of empathy and concern from many ...the 'groanings of The Spirit '...which would not go unheard in the heavens ...and may be a very timely need for the times and the people concerned ..
Unsure that the words of the promise being 'nullified ' were the right choice of words ...if that is what was said !
instead of how the promise is made available now to all of God's children ...to feel at one , in the heart , with all ..to 'bring all ' as exhorted , to the ocean of His mercy .... and the exhortation to be not afraid ...
Sharing this might almost seem childish , but here it is , to avoid cuplabilty ..it is the account given by a missionary priest of how the new home of the mission was in a snake infested village ..the missionaries were asked to use the rightful weapons that are made available to all His children - use of The Word , fasting, prayers ...6 months later , were told that the whole area seem devoid of the poisonous threat !
The Holy Father , like his predecessor and those before him too , we can be assured , thus have been using may be not direct exhortations to enemy powers ..in fact , the Church honored tradition in exorcisms is esp. for the laity not to talk direct to the evil one ...but to go to The Father ...a Father who calls the enemy as "My wrath ...My hatred .." He does not thus disown even the enemy and we children thus knowing well who really is in charge !
Drawing towards end of October ..a month specially dedicated to honor the enemy of the enemy of us all - The promised Woman ..whose role is given in minute glimpse , in the role of Queen Esther ..a Mother to all ...and The Church , one of these days , to be empowerd by The Spirit ..to use the power of the keys , to make her role all the more evident ...'pray ...pray much ' is what she asked for , as recently as in Fatima ...for there are many who also invite in the powers of the enemy ..
'be not afraid' ..first words from a chosen son whose role in helping to make 'evil empires' come tumbling down cannot be forgotten so soon ...and has shown again the path of fidelity to what would really make all the diffrences ...
Unsure that the words of the promise being 'nullified ' were the right choice of words ...if that is what was said !
instead of how the promise is made available now to all of God's children ...to feel at one , in the heart , with all ..to 'bring all ' as exhorted , to the ocean of His mercy .... and the exhortation to be not afraid ...
Sharing this might almost seem childish , but here it is , to avoid cuplabilty ..it is the account given by a missionary priest of how the new home of the mission was in a snake infested village ..the missionaries were asked to use the rightful weapons that are made available to all His children - use of The Word , fasting, prayers ...6 months later , were told that the whole area seem devoid of the poisonous threat !
The Holy Father , like his predecessor and those before him too , we can be assured , thus have been using may be not direct exhortations to enemy powers ..in fact , the Church honored tradition in exorcisms is esp. for the laity not to talk direct to the evil one ...but to go to The Father ...a Father who calls the enemy as "My wrath ...My hatred .." He does not thus disown even the enemy and we children thus knowing well who really is in charge !
Drawing towards end of October ..a month specially dedicated to honor the enemy of the enemy of us all - The promised Woman ..whose role is given in minute glimpse , in the role of Queen Esther ..a Mother to all ...and The Church , one of these days , to be empowerd by The Spirit ..to use the power of the keys , to make her role all the more evident ...'pray ...pray much ' is what she asked for , as recently as in Fatima ...for there are many who also invite in the powers of the enemy ..
'be not afraid' ..first words from a chosen son whose role in helping to make 'evil empires' come tumbling down cannot be forgotten so soon ...and has shown again the path of fidelity to what would really make all the diffrences ...
10.25.2010 | 9:32am
John Ray says:
David
I am a great admirer of your insights but your idea that the Pope should have gone to war with Hitler is preposterous
That would have done no good at all, whereas the middle way Pius XII chose did save many individual Jews -- some of whom probably bore the name Goldman
By the way, I am an atheist of Protestant background so I see this matter as an outsider -- which could be a useful viewpoint
I am a great admirer of your insights but your idea that the Pope should have gone to war with Hitler is preposterous
That would have done no good at all, whereas the middle way Pius XII chose did save many individual Jews -- some of whom probably bore the name Goldman
By the way, I am an atheist of Protestant background so I see this matter as an outsider -- which could be a useful viewpoint
10.25.2010 | 9:48am
Joe the Human Person says:
Maybe the solution is metaphoricalizing the "promised land," as Christians have. As being not any specific piece of land.
The land of "Israel" in fact was often condemned for its sins, in the Old Testament and Tanak.
So that rather, the true promised "kingdom" might well be the ideal, worldwide culture, of the many Abrahamic and other religions and nations. The ideal culture that after all, could yet be created, by assimilating tolerance, all around.
The land of "Israel" in fact was often condemned for its sins, in the Old Testament and Tanak.
So that rather, the true promised "kingdom" might well be the ideal, worldwide culture, of the many Abrahamic and other religions and nations. The ideal culture that after all, could yet be created, by assimilating tolerance, all around.
10.25.2010 | 10:09am
Laurence says:
Mr Goldman is at it again. More Middle East conspiracy theories. His vehement,scathing and contemptuous attack on the Melchites is unacceptable, unhelpful and an incredible disservice to the Christians who are native to and live in the Middle East. It is reminiscent of the contempt held by the Israelis for the Palestinians. I suggest he visit the Catholic Near East Welfare Association in New York to get his facts right. I am sure the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Churches does not share his bigoted and racist views. I am disgusted that First Things has such a person on its editorial board. Shame on you.
As for birth rates in Israel being high due to the Ultra orthodox. I would say the 2.72 rate is due to the 16.2% Moslem population. I live in Riyadh. Thanks to the generosity of western embassies some of us can attend weekly mass in the diplomatic quarter. However I am lucky enough to get to Jordan every three weeks. There I attend the Melchite (Greek catholic) masses in Aqaba or Amman. The Arab language liturgies are beautiful, the churches crowded with young families and joyful children. And it is the same in Lebanon and occupied Palestine. What on earth has the birth rate of Greece got to do with the Melchites who are Palestinians. It is like saying Vitenam is going to fall off the map beacuse Japan has a low birth rate just because they are both Asian in name. And since when do the Israelis have a right to Palestine occupied territories because they are the Elect. That is like saying the Italians should have England bercause Julius Ceaser conquered and occupied the country two thousand years ago. Mr Goldman looks like he has been tainted by the ridiculous Evangelical heresy of Dispensationsationalism which has morphed into the Christian Zionists who with their silly "beam me up Jesus" belief in the rapture want to fund the Jewish orthodox settlers to take over the whole of the Holy Land and re build the temple. I suppose Mr Goldman will be saying next that the Melchites will be left behind while the American Catholics will be beamed up to heaven Your article Mr Goldman is beneath contempt.
As for birth rates in Israel being high due to the Ultra orthodox. I would say the 2.72 rate is due to the 16.2% Moslem population. I live in Riyadh. Thanks to the generosity of western embassies some of us can attend weekly mass in the diplomatic quarter. However I am lucky enough to get to Jordan every three weeks. There I attend the Melchite (Greek catholic) masses in Aqaba or Amman. The Arab language liturgies are beautiful, the churches crowded with young families and joyful children. And it is the same in Lebanon and occupied Palestine. What on earth has the birth rate of Greece got to do with the Melchites who are Palestinians. It is like saying Vitenam is going to fall off the map beacuse Japan has a low birth rate just because they are both Asian in name. And since when do the Israelis have a right to Palestine occupied territories because they are the Elect. That is like saying the Italians should have England bercause Julius Ceaser conquered and occupied the country two thousand years ago. Mr Goldman looks like he has been tainted by the ridiculous Evangelical heresy of Dispensationsationalism which has morphed into the Christian Zionists who with their silly "beam me up Jesus" belief in the rapture want to fund the Jewish orthodox settlers to take over the whole of the Holy Land and re build the temple. I suppose Mr Goldman will be saying next that the Melchites will be left behind while the American Catholics will be beamed up to heaven Your article Mr Goldman is beneath contempt.
10.25.2010 | 10:20am
Ethan C. says:
Stuart,
I'd be interested to hear how you consider Melkite/Eastern Catholic history to affect Mr. Goldman's political point. Is he wrong about the Middle Eastern Christians being dominated by their Muslim rulers? I'm kind of unclear about what you find so objectionable about his analysis.
I'd be interested to hear how you consider Melkite/Eastern Catholic history to affect Mr. Goldman's political point. Is he wrong about the Middle Eastern Christians being dominated by their Muslim rulers? I'm kind of unclear about what you find so objectionable about his analysis.
10.25.2010 | 10:31am
JCM says:
Pius XII was a saintly man, but he was not a heroic leader. He sought to be a diplomat confronting mass murder on a scale never before seen. (The Bolsheviks killed, but used starvation rather than gas as the weapon of choice). Pius had a once in a millenium opportunity to juxtapose the Gospel message against radical evil. He did what he could around the edges. He was not Hitler's Pope, but he was a dishwater version of Christ's Vicar on Earth. With this opportunity lost, Catholicism lost its credibility and moral standing in Europe. Alas.
10.25.2010 | 10:31am
Matthew Yonke says:
As a member of another Greek Church in union with Rome, the Romanian Church, I, like Stuart, am offended and a bit baffled by much of this article.
Mr. Goldman's facile understanding of what a "Greek Catholic" Church is makes me think he may have wanted to search Wikipedia on the term before writing a lengthy article condemning us and our posterity to irrelevance and oblivion. Most Greek Catholic Churches have nothing to do with a biological connection to modern day Greece but rather Greek has become synonymous with "Eastern" or "Byzantine." As such, the population growth rate of modern day Greece concerns us very little.
And further, while there certainly remains some role for Israel in God's eschatological plans, God's promises to the Jews have manifestly been applied to all who believe in Christ. As St. Paul says, the promise to Abraham was made to Abraham and his seed, and his seed in Christ and all that are in Him. Therefore, the promise to Abraham is for all who believe in Christ, whether Jew or Greek (another example of the word Greek not meaning "citizen of Greece." This phenomena is popping up all over the place!)
Certainly our recent Popes have urged the Church to interact with the Jewish people and understand them to understand our faith better, but we must preach the gospel to all men, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be sure to have all the promises the God of Israel has to offer.
Mr. Goldman's facile understanding of what a "Greek Catholic" Church is makes me think he may have wanted to search Wikipedia on the term before writing a lengthy article condemning us and our posterity to irrelevance and oblivion. Most Greek Catholic Churches have nothing to do with a biological connection to modern day Greece but rather Greek has become synonymous with "Eastern" or "Byzantine." As such, the population growth rate of modern day Greece concerns us very little.
And further, while there certainly remains some role for Israel in God's eschatological plans, God's promises to the Jews have manifestly been applied to all who believe in Christ. As St. Paul says, the promise to Abraham was made to Abraham and his seed, and his seed in Christ and all that are in Him. Therefore, the promise to Abraham is for all who believe in Christ, whether Jew or Greek (another example of the word Greek not meaning "citizen of Greece." This phenomena is popping up all over the place!)
Certainly our recent Popes have urged the Church to interact with the Jewish people and understand them to understand our faith better, but we must preach the gospel to all men, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be sure to have all the promises the God of Israel has to offer.
10.25.2010 | 10:37am
Ethan C. says:
"The Promised Land is in Heaven, and it is promised to everyone."
Well, not quite. The Promised Land is the new city of Jerusalem as it will appear after the destruction of this world. It will be earthly and physical, and quite Jewish.
However, as Christians, we also believe that "the things of this earth are passing away," and that includes our worldly political entities. As the writer of the letter to the Hebrews says, "Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." What was true in the context of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem is also true today.
This does not at all mean that we have no responsibility to protect the State of Israel. We do.
What it does mean is that we should not simply conflate our loyalty or friendship to that state with our loyalty to the Chosen People who will be with us in the true Promised Land. That will lead to theological and political confusion.
I think it's much more helpful to see the modern State of Israel as a *type* of the Promised Land to come, just as ancient Canaan was a type of that Land. As such, it shows forth some of the qualities of its fulfilling object, though it does not possess its fullness. In the same way, it commands our loyalty as friends of the Chosen People which it represents, but not our absolute loyalty as though it were the New Jerusalem itself.
Well, not quite. The Promised Land is the new city of Jerusalem as it will appear after the destruction of this world. It will be earthly and physical, and quite Jewish.
However, as Christians, we also believe that "the things of this earth are passing away," and that includes our worldly political entities. As the writer of the letter to the Hebrews says, "Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." What was true in the context of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem is also true today.
This does not at all mean that we have no responsibility to protect the State of Israel. We do.
What it does mean is that we should not simply conflate our loyalty or friendship to that state with our loyalty to the Chosen People who will be with us in the true Promised Land. That will lead to theological and political confusion.
I think it's much more helpful to see the modern State of Israel as a *type* of the Promised Land to come, just as ancient Canaan was a type of that Land. As such, it shows forth some of the qualities of its fulfilling object, though it does not possess its fullness. In the same way, it commands our loyalty as friends of the Chosen People which it represents, but not our absolute loyalty as though it were the New Jerusalem itself.
10.25.2010 | 10:57am
David Goldman says:
I am well aware of the ethnic diversity of the Melkite church; my point about Greeks pointed to a broader issue. Christianity in the Middle East was Greek-speaking from the beginning; what Arabic Christian sources are there? The "Arab Christian" idea emerges after the Turks slaughter or expel the Greeks, and the broader Greek community--the backbone of Middle Eastern Christianity--is dying out.
Romania is a county I know a bit about: my grandmother was born in Iasi, although she grew up in Vienna. There once was a Jewish community of 100,000 in iasi, with important communal institutions. Romania has fertility of 1.3 or thereabouts; the Romanian language loses viability at this rate in a little over a century.
As a matter of record, I don't mind if you preach the Gospel to me. I work for a mainly Christian magazine and hear Christian arguments all day. What I object to is supercessionism. The fact that the most vehemently supercessionist Churches have the worst demographics may or may not tell us something, but it seems worth pointing out.
Romania is a county I know a bit about: my grandmother was born in Iasi, although she grew up in Vienna. There once was a Jewish community of 100,000 in iasi, with important communal institutions. Romania has fertility of 1.3 or thereabouts; the Romanian language loses viability at this rate in a little over a century.
As a matter of record, I don't mind if you preach the Gospel to me. I work for a mainly Christian magazine and hear Christian arguments all day. What I object to is supercessionism. The fact that the most vehemently supercessionist Churches have the worst demographics may or may not tell us something, but it seems worth pointing out.
10.25.2010 | 11:04am
David Goldman says:
John Ray,
It would have been "absurd" indeed for Pius XII to have gone to war with Hitler; as I said, it probably would have led to his martyrdom and a Nazi-sponsored schism. Such, sometimes, are the absurdities of faith. It is hard not to ask the question: when did the Catholic Church reach a point of no return in Europe? What could it have done to resist secularization? I speculated that such an "absurd" act might have left the Church stronger after the war; I do not know whether that is the case, and I drew no conclusion. Perhaps the world needs us to be heros. We Jews have found out to our chagrin that we have to be heros to be Jewish--believe me, we would prefer it otherwise.
It would have been "absurd" indeed for Pius XII to have gone to war with Hitler; as I said, it probably would have led to his martyrdom and a Nazi-sponsored schism. Such, sometimes, are the absurdities of faith. It is hard not to ask the question: when did the Catholic Church reach a point of no return in Europe? What could it have done to resist secularization? I speculated that such an "absurd" act might have left the Church stronger after the war; I do not know whether that is the case, and I drew no conclusion. Perhaps the world needs us to be heros. We Jews have found out to our chagrin that we have to be heros to be Jewish--believe me, we would prefer it otherwise.
10.25.2010 | 11:11am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
Dear Ethan,
Is our loyalty to the Jewish people of a different kind for out loyalty to the Melkite people, the Arab people generally, or the Chinese? There is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free for us. We are all one.
As for whether the State of Israel is a type of anything, it would be better not to raise that matter at all. Certainly the inhuman conditions to which the Arabs in Gaza are subjected every day, conditions described and condemned graphically by former president Jimmy Carter, belong to the type that is passing away.
Jonah would rather have sent the Assyrians to Hell, but with a little prodding from Yehowah, he went instead to the city to preach repentance. He went to them in order to rescue and save them. But in this he stands as a model for us, which is that by admonition we are to save our fellow men, rather than to seek their ruin. Jonah was a very just man, which is why Yehowah tolerated his initial refusal to go, but he became an instrument of mercy even against his will. Would that we all answer Jesus' call as Jonah did, and did not refuse it as Mr. Goldman counsels.
Is our loyalty to the Jewish people of a different kind for out loyalty to the Melkite people, the Arab people generally, or the Chinese? There is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free for us. We are all one.
As for whether the State of Israel is a type of anything, it would be better not to raise that matter at all. Certainly the inhuman conditions to which the Arabs in Gaza are subjected every day, conditions described and condemned graphically by former president Jimmy Carter, belong to the type that is passing away.
Jonah would rather have sent the Assyrians to Hell, but with a little prodding from Yehowah, he went instead to the city to preach repentance. He went to them in order to rescue and save them. But in this he stands as a model for us, which is that by admonition we are to save our fellow men, rather than to seek their ruin. Jonah was a very just man, which is why Yehowah tolerated his initial refusal to go, but he became an instrument of mercy even against his will. Would that we all answer Jesus' call as Jonah did, and did not refuse it as Mr. Goldman counsels.
10.25.2010 | 11:26am
Windthorst says:
Some of the promises to the Jewish people in the Bible are really only relevant to the Jews as certain tribes are mentioned. Otherwise 1.3 billion Christians could figure out how would get the land of Naftali and who thus of Efraim and so forth. For understanding everything only literal, there are too many practical specifications.
If not for political reasons, I don't understand why the Archbishop of the Melkite Greeks uttered such a comment. I have the impression, that the Meliktes writing here are only angry at the bringer of the bad news, not at the cause.
In his final address for the mentioned Middle East Synod he said: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122, 6). Following Mr Goldman's conclusion, there was more than one intention in this statement.
If not for political reasons, I don't understand why the Archbishop of the Melkite Greeks uttered such a comment. I have the impression, that the Meliktes writing here are only angry at the bringer of the bad news, not at the cause.
In his final address for the mentioned Middle East Synod he said: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122, 6). Following Mr Goldman's conclusion, there was more than one intention in this statement.
10.25.2010 | 11:36am
Staff says:
I find it really, really strange how Mr. Goldman can be shocked, shocked by Christian bishops' failure to include Jews who haven't converted to Christianity into the Divine plan of salvation as they see it (which is not a new theological position, and certainly not controversial one), while at the same time failing to say anything about recent outrageous proclamation of the Shas party leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef on how "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.", as reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782). How disappointing is that? And why would you expect Christians, except for the Hebrew ones since they obviously don't count as "Goyim" regardless of their Christianity, to do anything to help Israelis if their religious leaders hold and propagate such repugnant views?
10.25.2010 | 12:12pm
Charles Cosimano says:
In 1943 it was pretty obvious to anyone who could read a map that the Nazi regime was not going to last very long. But still an argument can be made for the Pope being circumspect with German troops occupying Rome and much of Italy.
However:
The argument that the Pope would have become a martyr for excommunicating Hitler and his supporters falls apart on June 5, 1944. Why? Because that was the day American troops took Rome. Pius XII had 9 months to speak freely and condemn the Nazis with no personal danger to himself.
However:
The argument that the Pope would have become a martyr for excommunicating Hitler and his supporters falls apart on June 5, 1944. Why? Because that was the day American troops took Rome. Pius XII had 9 months to speak freely and condemn the Nazis with no personal danger to himself.
10.25.2010 | 12:37pm
Eric Giunta says:
With all due respect to Dr Goldman, he grossly misunderstands what it is the Catholic Church means when we say (and this IS in the Catechism) that God's covenant with the Jews remains eternally valid.
Catholics do not posit, strictly speaking, the existence of two separate covenants, Old and New. Rather, the New is the continuation and fulfillment of the Old. The Old Covenant is still valid, the "gifts and the call are irrevocable" as the Church says (quoting St Paul): but as we Catholic Christians see it, God's gift is Christ, and His call is for all to enter into the unity of the true religion: Catholic Christianity.
As we Catholics understand it, the Jewish people have a role to play in Gods plan, and before the end of the world there will be a corporate conversion of some sort, on their part, to Catholicism. Until then, God continues to call them, as He calls everyone but *especially* them, to become Christians.
What the Melkite bishop said is just Christianity 101.
Catholics do not posit, strictly speaking, the existence of two separate covenants, Old and New. Rather, the New is the continuation and fulfillment of the Old. The Old Covenant is still valid, the "gifts and the call are irrevocable" as the Church says (quoting St Paul): but as we Catholic Christians see it, God's gift is Christ, and His call is for all to enter into the unity of the true religion: Catholic Christianity.
As we Catholics understand it, the Jewish people have a role to play in Gods plan, and before the end of the world there will be a corporate conversion of some sort, on their part, to Catholicism. Until then, God continues to call them, as He calls everyone but *especially* them, to become Christians.
What the Melkite bishop said is just Christianity 101.
10.25.2010 | 12:49pm
Anon says:
Religious people see the hand of God in history.
To deny that God's hand is behind the rebirth of Israel is to deny God Himself.
It is written time and again in the Bible that God will return the nation of Israel to the land of Israel.
The Church will have to come to terms with this theologically. They cannot bury their heads in the sand and pretend that this is not the case. Biblical prophesy and reality in front of all of our eyes attest to the Truth.
God promised. God is delivering as the nation of Israel always knew He would. The Church can welcome and support this and they will be blessed. If, however, they deny it and fight against it, they will be cursed.
It is their choice.
To deny that God's hand is behind the rebirth of Israel is to deny God Himself.
It is written time and again in the Bible that God will return the nation of Israel to the land of Israel.
The Church will have to come to terms with this theologically. They cannot bury their heads in the sand and pretend that this is not the case. Biblical prophesy and reality in front of all of our eyes attest to the Truth.
God promised. God is delivering as the nation of Israel always knew He would. The Church can welcome and support this and they will be blessed. If, however, they deny it and fight against it, they will be cursed.
It is their choice.
10.25.2010 | 12:49pm
Eric Giunta says:
Heck, if Dr Goldman had bothered to check out even the Wikipedia article on the subject, he'd come away with a much better understanding of what orthodox Catholicism teaches on this subject:
"Supersessionism is not the name of any official Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach an extreme or 'crude' supersessionism that considers the Jewish people themselves as effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy. For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the 'gifts and calling of God are irrevocable' (Rom 11:29). The persevering presence of Israel on earth is perhaps that best proof that God exists and that His covenant extends 'to a thousand generations' (Deut 7:9). The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture."
And this, from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself:
"In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#Roman_Catholicism
I think Dr Goldman owes Archbishop Bustros, and Catholics generally, an apology.
"Supersessionism is not the name of any official Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach an extreme or 'crude' supersessionism that considers the Jewish people themselves as effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy. For the Catholic Church, the Jewish people are a reminder that the 'gifts and calling of God are irrevocable' (Rom 11:29). The persevering presence of Israel on earth is perhaps that best proof that God exists and that His covenant extends 'to a thousand generations' (Deut 7:9). The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture."
And this, from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself:
"In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#Roman_Catholicism
I think Dr Goldman owes Archbishop Bustros, and Catholics generally, an apology.
10.25.2010 | 1:22pm
Ellen Shnidman says:
An interesting point to make here is the difference in attitudes among the Greek Orthodox Christians of Lebanon and the Maronite Catholics. It was the Maronites who resisted in part the Arabization of Christianity in Lebanon by keeping French as a coequal language to Arabic in their communities and teaching it in their schools. They always have viewed themselves as descendents of the Phoenicians, not as Arabs and fellow travelers of Arab Nationalism. This may sound farcical, and their horrendous leadership doomed them anyway, but they never bought into the fantasies of Arab nationalism.
The Greek Orthodox, however, did. The leading Arab Christians who become devotees of Arab Nationalism, including George Habash - one of the founders of the PLO - were almost all Greek Orthodox, not Catholic. This is important because I think it shows what dim prospects they viewed for the Greek Orthodox Church in the Middle East, which is one of the reasons they wanted to travel under the banner of secular Arab Nationalism, no matter how farcical that movement was. The Catholics, at least, felt they could rely on the Vatican and the strength of the Catholic Church in the West to support them. The Greek Orthodox looked at the decay of their mother church in Greece itself and in Istanbul and essentially threw themselves at the mercy of their Muslim neighbors. The fact that most of them are now choosing to emigrate, is a sign that that strategy clearly failed. This has nothing to do with Israel at all, but rather the pathology of the contemporary Arab world, which is where they should focus their fury.
The Greek Orthodox, however, did. The leading Arab Christians who become devotees of Arab Nationalism, including George Habash - one of the founders of the PLO - were almost all Greek Orthodox, not Catholic. This is important because I think it shows what dim prospects they viewed for the Greek Orthodox Church in the Middle East, which is one of the reasons they wanted to travel under the banner of secular Arab Nationalism, no matter how farcical that movement was. The Catholics, at least, felt they could rely on the Vatican and the strength of the Catholic Church in the West to support them. The Greek Orthodox looked at the decay of their mother church in Greece itself and in Istanbul and essentially threw themselves at the mercy of their Muslim neighbors. The fact that most of them are now choosing to emigrate, is a sign that that strategy clearly failed. This has nothing to do with Israel at all, but rather the pathology of the contemporary Arab world, which is where they should focus their fury.
10.25.2010 | 1:33pm
Lou Pizzuti says:
To Stuart Koehl,
Stuart,
you always were one to take offense, weren't you. Especially where it wasn't intended, and especially in those cases where the Melkite Church is absolutely wrong.
Buck it up and act like a Christian, not a dhimmi.
Stuart,
you always were one to take offense, weren't you. Especially where it wasn't intended, and especially in those cases where the Melkite Church is absolutely wrong.
Buck it up and act like a Christian, not a dhimmi.
10.25.2010 | 1:45pm
David Goldman says:
Staff,
The report statements of the Shas rabbi are repugnant; mainstream Jewish organizations have repudiated them, as do I. The founder of religious Zionism, Rav Abraham Kook, would have done so as well. They are not mainstream Jewish views, but a backward and regrettable deviation.
Mr. Giunta,
You seem unaware of the facts. Benedict XVI (like his great predecessor) has gone much further in acknowledging the enduring election of the Jewish people. I wrote about this on this site on March 13, 2009, as follows:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/03/13/a-turning-point-in-catholic-jewish-relations/
“This was not just another meeting,” the Jerusalem Post today quotes Haifa Chief Rabbi She’ar-Yashuv Cohen after yesterday’s meeting between Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican with a delegation from the Israeli rabbinate. “This was a special experience, a turning point, the end of a crisis. We could not have expected a warmer reception,” said Rabbi Cohen, who headed the delegation. This is a noteworthy change after months of nearly frozen relations between the Vatican and Israel’s chief rabbis, who had rankled at the prayer for the Jews in the Latin revision of the Easter Liturgy.
Benedict told the Israeli group, ”The Jewish people, who were chosen as the elected people, communicate to the whole human family knowledge of and fidelity to the one, unique and true God,” the Jerusalem Post reported. That is perhaps the strongest statement on the subject of Jewish election by any pope in history. From the Jewish side, Rabbi Cohen told the press that the Jews “couldn’t expect more” from the Pope, which must be the first time in history that a Jewish leader has been left with nothing to complain about with respect to the Catholic Church.
By coincidence, I had the privilege of hearing Haifa Chief Rabbi Cohen speak at my synagogue last Shabbat; he is a revered figure among Orthodox Jews in the United States.
The report statements of the Shas rabbi are repugnant; mainstream Jewish organizations have repudiated them, as do I. The founder of religious Zionism, Rav Abraham Kook, would have done so as well. They are not mainstream Jewish views, but a backward and regrettable deviation.
Mr. Giunta,
You seem unaware of the facts. Benedict XVI (like his great predecessor) has gone much further in acknowledging the enduring election of the Jewish people. I wrote about this on this site on March 13, 2009, as follows:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/03/13/a-turning-point-in-catholic-jewish-relations/
“This was not just another meeting,” the Jerusalem Post today quotes Haifa Chief Rabbi She’ar-Yashuv Cohen after yesterday’s meeting between Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican with a delegation from the Israeli rabbinate. “This was a special experience, a turning point, the end of a crisis. We could not have expected a warmer reception,” said Rabbi Cohen, who headed the delegation. This is a noteworthy change after months of nearly frozen relations between the Vatican and Israel’s chief rabbis, who had rankled at the prayer for the Jews in the Latin revision of the Easter Liturgy.
Benedict told the Israeli group, ”The Jewish people, who were chosen as the elected people, communicate to the whole human family knowledge of and fidelity to the one, unique and true God,” the Jerusalem Post reported. That is perhaps the strongest statement on the subject of Jewish election by any pope in history. From the Jewish side, Rabbi Cohen told the press that the Jews “couldn’t expect more” from the Pope, which must be the first time in history that a Jewish leader has been left with nothing to complain about with respect to the Catholic Church.
By coincidence, I had the privilege of hearing Haifa Chief Rabbi Cohen speak at my synagogue last Shabbat; he is a revered figure among Orthodox Jews in the United States.
10.25.2010 | 2:15pm
Joseph C says:
And so here we go again! A misinformed Westerner weighing in on the Bishop Synod for the Middle East. I have to agree with Stuart Koehl when he said: “Goldman might have consulted a couple of short histories of the both the Melkite Patriarchate and the Eastern Catholic Churches more broadly, before uttering such ill-informed comments.” Mr Goldman, your article today was full of errors, and for the sake of time I will limit myself to few.
However, before I start, I have to agree that you speak from your own experience: “Given Jewish experience, I replied, the Church would do better to get its people out while there still was time.” How ridiculous! Get “its” people? Sorry Mr Goldman, the Christians are not the Church’s people, we are Christ’s people a priori. Martyrdom, (witnessing) has been that which brings us in communion with Christ. Hence the title of the Synod: The Catholic Church in the Middle-East, Communion and Witness.
Mr Goldman,
1. If statistics defined the rule of the propagation of Christian faith, Christianity would have been doomed at inception. It took 12 apostles to change the face of the world, no gambler would take such odd.
2. Archbishop Boutros is speaking in the theological sense, while the world interprets his statement in the geopolitical sense. Very typical of Western thinkers these days.
3. Mr Goldman writes: “I am well aware of the ethnic diversity of the Melkite church; my point about Greeks pointed to a broader issue. Christianity in the Middle East was Greek-speaking from the beginning; what Arabic Christian sources are there? The "Arab Christian" idea emerges after the Turks slaughter or expel the Greeks, and the broader Greek community--the backbone of Middle Eastern Christianity--is dying out.”
Mr Goldman, you are obviously misinformed, what about the Semitic Syriac (Aramaic Speaking Christians) or the Coptic (although Greek influenced)? Are you aware of their influence on theological development? Or the discourses between the Syriac theologian and their Arab Islamic counterpart? (some may even argue that the Christology found in the Quran is a Nestorian-Syriac heresy) If you are aware, then how could you say that “Christianity in the Middle East was Greek-speaking from the beginning”?
4. Mr Goldman writes: “If Iran’s proxy army, the Hezbollah, wished to, it could slaughter the Christians on any given morning. That is why the most prominent Lebanese Christian leader, Michel Aoun, is allied to Hezbollah, against the Saudi- and American-backed Sunni opposition.” Misinformed even on the political scene, Michel Aoun is allied to Hezbollah but is not the only, and by no stretch of the imagination does he represent the majority of Christians (as seen in the latest parlemental election of Lebanon). As for the slaughtering of Christian on any given morning, I find that statement so appalling coming from an esteemed writer as yourself! Evil always attempted such a “slaughter” whether be it the Armenian Genocide, or the Lebanese 20-year war, no winner at the end! Has the holocaust annihilated the Jews? Would Islam remove Christianity from their native land? Although emigration is a reality, and persecution is evident, the Middle Eastern Christian especially the Coptic and Maronite/Melkite are exhibiting a great renaissance.
The Synod was convened, not as a thorn to Israel, there was no conspiracy. The narrow viewpoint you make is simply that, narrow. The Synod was convened as a testimony of to the “communion and witness” that Middle Eastern Christians believe and live every day.
Mr Goldman, please read the Synod closing statement especially Sections IV. Co-operation and dialogue with our Jewish Fellow-citizens, Section V: Co-operation and dialogue with our Muslim-Fellow Citizens, and Section VII: Appeal to the International Community.
However, before I start, I have to agree that you speak from your own experience: “Given Jewish experience, I replied, the Church would do better to get its people out while there still was time.” How ridiculous! Get “its” people? Sorry Mr Goldman, the Christians are not the Church’s people, we are Christ’s people a priori. Martyrdom, (witnessing) has been that which brings us in communion with Christ. Hence the title of the Synod: The Catholic Church in the Middle-East, Communion and Witness.
Mr Goldman,
1. If statistics defined the rule of the propagation of Christian faith, Christianity would have been doomed at inception. It took 12 apostles to change the face of the world, no gambler would take such odd.
2. Archbishop Boutros is speaking in the theological sense, while the world interprets his statement in the geopolitical sense. Very typical of Western thinkers these days.
3. Mr Goldman writes: “I am well aware of the ethnic diversity of the Melkite church; my point about Greeks pointed to a broader issue. Christianity in the Middle East was Greek-speaking from the beginning; what Arabic Christian sources are there? The "Arab Christian" idea emerges after the Turks slaughter or expel the Greeks, and the broader Greek community--the backbone of Middle Eastern Christianity--is dying out.”
Mr Goldman, you are obviously misinformed, what about the Semitic Syriac (Aramaic Speaking Christians) or the Coptic (although Greek influenced)? Are you aware of their influence on theological development? Or the discourses between the Syriac theologian and their Arab Islamic counterpart? (some may even argue that the Christology found in the Quran is a Nestorian-Syriac heresy) If you are aware, then how could you say that “Christianity in the Middle East was Greek-speaking from the beginning”?
4. Mr Goldman writes: “If Iran’s proxy army, the Hezbollah, wished to, it could slaughter the Christians on any given morning. That is why the most prominent Lebanese Christian leader, Michel Aoun, is allied to Hezbollah, against the Saudi- and American-backed Sunni opposition.” Misinformed even on the political scene, Michel Aoun is allied to Hezbollah but is not the only, and by no stretch of the imagination does he represent the majority of Christians (as seen in the latest parlemental election of Lebanon). As for the slaughtering of Christian on any given morning, I find that statement so appalling coming from an esteemed writer as yourself! Evil always attempted such a “slaughter” whether be it the Armenian Genocide, or the Lebanese 20-year war, no winner at the end! Has the holocaust annihilated the Jews? Would Islam remove Christianity from their native land? Although emigration is a reality, and persecution is evident, the Middle Eastern Christian especially the Coptic and Maronite/Melkite are exhibiting a great renaissance.
The Synod was convened, not as a thorn to Israel, there was no conspiracy. The narrow viewpoint you make is simply that, narrow. The Synod was convened as a testimony of to the “communion and witness” that Middle Eastern Christians believe and live every day.
Mr Goldman, please read the Synod closing statement especially Sections IV. Co-operation and dialogue with our Jewish Fellow-citizens, Section V: Co-operation and dialogue with our Muslim-Fellow Citizens, and Section VII: Appeal to the International Community.
10.25.2010 | 2:26pm
simeon says:
To David Goldman: As a Catholic, I want to express my solidarity with your comments regarding the political and uncalled-for remarks of a bishop. It never fails to amaze me that so many Christians (and Jews) of all stripes receive the most vile, unethical, immoral and evil treatment from moslems that it is repugnant to me that anyone even try to defend Bustros' statement. It should be repudiated by the Vatican and, instead, we should be hearing a loud resounding condemnation of islam and its policies, politically, religiously and racially. What is wrong with most of you Catholics? Have you all lost sight as to what happened to Hagia Sophia (or are you unaware of history)? In this month of October, celebrating the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, did you forget Lepanto? Has no one reminded you why the Angelus was instituted? Get on the right side of this battle and speak out against the real enemy: islam, before you, too, will be speaking absurdities like Bustros and submitting to a religion that was inspired by the devil.
10.25.2010 | 2:30pm
David Goldman says:
Joseph C,
Archbishop Butros' theology is at odds with that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI; see my May 13, 2009 post, linked in my response above.
There is a reason that St. Paul and the Evangelists wrote in Greek rather than Syriac/Aramaic. The latter communities (Chaldean and Assyrian) are ancient but derivative from Greek-speaking Christianity, as are the Copts.
Sadly, the balance of power in Lebanon has shifted so far towards Iran that the Christians no longer have the military strength to protect themselves against Hezbollah. That is not really a controversial statement. The worst thing the Reagan administration did, in my judgment, was to abandon Lebanon. We are still paying for that now.
Archbishop Butros' theology is at odds with that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI; see my May 13, 2009 post, linked in my response above.
There is a reason that St. Paul and the Evangelists wrote in Greek rather than Syriac/Aramaic. The latter communities (Chaldean and Assyrian) are ancient but derivative from Greek-speaking Christianity, as are the Copts.
Sadly, the balance of power in Lebanon has shifted so far towards Iran that the Christians no longer have the military strength to protect themselves against Hezbollah. That is not really a controversial statement. The worst thing the Reagan administration did, in my judgment, was to abandon Lebanon. We are still paying for that now.
10.25.2010 | 2:31pm
Don Roberto says:
Mr. Gibbons: the Persians, followers of a false prophet, are led by leaders who have proven themselves to be violent and irrational. They are worthy of special attention/concern.
Laurence, et al.: I would suggest you consider that Israel cannot but distrust the Palestinians (and Arabs), who have have thown away many opportunities for peace.
Laurence, et al.: I would suggest you consider that Israel cannot but distrust the Palestinians (and Arabs), who have have thown away many opportunities for peace.
10.25.2010 | 2:46pm
ahem says:
As a human being and a Christian, it is embarassing almost to the point of tears to see the disfunctional response to Mr. Goldman's column. The main point is not theology or supersessionism or history or whether some passages in the Bible are literal or metaphorical--the point is European Christianity's increasing weakness and unwillingness to come to the aid of the Jews--now, today. Again.
Patrick says: You're on your own.
sanpietrini says: I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with this.
Koehl says: You're a poopiehead. Wanna fight?
pdn Michael says: You've got a typo.
Joel Clarke Gibbons says: Blah, blah, blah.
Maria V says: I'm tripping today.
Joe THP says: Karl Marx reporting for duty.
Laurence says: I'm a devout Christian, and I think you ought to lose your job.
Matthew Yonke says: Have a red herring.
Staff says: I don't care.
Windthorst says: Read the fine print.
Shame.
David:
I see that both Catholic Melkites in the United States read your column. It must be gratifying.
Joseph C: Of course Mr Goldman is aware of the Semitic Syriac (Aramaic Speaking Christians) and Coptic (although Greek influenced) influence on theological development--isn't everyone?
Patrick says: You're on your own.
sanpietrini says: I was hoping I wouldn't have to deal with this.
Koehl says: You're a poopiehead. Wanna fight?
pdn Michael says: You've got a typo.
Joel Clarke Gibbons says: Blah, blah, blah.
Maria V says: I'm tripping today.
Joe THP says: Karl Marx reporting for duty.
Laurence says: I'm a devout Christian, and I think you ought to lose your job.
Matthew Yonke says: Have a red herring.
Staff says: I don't care.
Windthorst says: Read the fine print.
Shame.
David:
I see that both Catholic Melkites in the United States read your column. It must be gratifying.
Joseph C: Of course Mr Goldman is aware of the Semitic Syriac (Aramaic Speaking Christians) and Coptic (although Greek influenced) influence on theological development--isn't everyone?
10.25.2010 | 2:59pm
Barbara says:
Do you know what happened to the Dutch bishops when they spoke out forcefully against Nazi persecution of the Jews? Ask Edith Stein - oh, wait, she lost her life in Auschwitz.
Do you really think formal excommunication would have had any effect? Wishful thinking, on your part. It probably wouold have led to the Pope's capture and execution. What would the thousands of Jews sheltered in convents, monasteries, and churches have done? What about all the baptismal certificates given out by Catholic Church to protect Jews? Would they have been accepted? Look at the numbers of religious and priests executed by the Nazis - Maximilien Kolbe is one of the more famous.
The NYT praised Pius XII during WWII for being the only voice in Europe speaking out against the Nazis. The chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism and took the name Eugenio as his baptismal name.
Pius XII had been the Nuncio in Germany before the war. He knew them and wrote a scathing denunciation of the Nazi creed. Something about Mit Brenner Sorge - you can read it on the Vatican Web site. Nazis knew him and were horrified and angry when he was elected to the Papacy. They even plotted to kidnap him him!
Behind the scenes? Ask the thousands of Jews and their families hidden in the churches, monasteries, and convents in Rome. Or rather, you can ask their descendants.
Your idea that the deChristianizing of Europe has something to do with Pius XII's isn't true. He was largely admired during the war, and after - it's only when a play, written by an East German in the 60s, that the myth of his misconduct/negligence arose. John Cornwell's spiteful, factually challenged book didn't help.
Think Golda Meier would have had words of praise for Pius XII upon his death if he'd been what revisionist historians (anti-Catholic, anti-faith) would have you believe?
Why not castigate the racist US immmigration law of 1924 that prevented immigration by European Jews?
Do you really think formal excommunication would have had any effect? Wishful thinking, on your part. It probably wouold have led to the Pope's capture and execution. What would the thousands of Jews sheltered in convents, monasteries, and churches have done? What about all the baptismal certificates given out by Catholic Church to protect Jews? Would they have been accepted? Look at the numbers of religious and priests executed by the Nazis - Maximilien Kolbe is one of the more famous.
The NYT praised Pius XII during WWII for being the only voice in Europe speaking out against the Nazis. The chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism and took the name Eugenio as his baptismal name.
Pius XII had been the Nuncio in Germany before the war. He knew them and wrote a scathing denunciation of the Nazi creed. Something about Mit Brenner Sorge - you can read it on the Vatican Web site. Nazis knew him and were horrified and angry when he was elected to the Papacy. They even plotted to kidnap him him!
Behind the scenes? Ask the thousands of Jews and their families hidden in the churches, monasteries, and convents in Rome. Or rather, you can ask their descendants.
Your idea that the deChristianizing of Europe has something to do with Pius XII's isn't true. He was largely admired during the war, and after - it's only when a play, written by an East German in the 60s, that the myth of his misconduct/negligence arose. John Cornwell's spiteful, factually challenged book didn't help.
Think Golda Meier would have had words of praise for Pius XII upon his death if he'd been what revisionist historians (anti-Catholic, anti-faith) would have you believe?
Why not castigate the racist US immmigration law of 1924 that prevented immigration by European Jews?
10.25.2010 | 3:20pm
David Goldman says:
Barbara,
With whom are you quarreling? I made clear that I think Pius XII was a good man.
I agree with you and made precisely the same points.
My question is different: if Pius XII had openly denounced the Nazi evil, would the Church have come out of World War II with greater moral authority? Would that have helped the Church to resist the tide of secularism which has virtually eradicated Christian life in many European countries, and marginalized it in almost all of them?
With whom are you quarreling? I made clear that I think Pius XII was a good man.
I agree with you and made precisely the same points.
My question is different: if Pius XII had openly denounced the Nazi evil, would the Church have come out of World War II with greater moral authority? Would that have helped the Church to resist the tide of secularism which has virtually eradicated Christian life in many European countries, and marginalized it in almost all of them?
10.25.2010 | 3:23pm
pdn Michael says:
@Ahem
Hee, hee, my pointing out a mere typo makes me look downright innocuous!
Hee, hee, my pointing out a mere typo makes me look downright innocuous!
10.25.2010 | 3:26pm
Russell Moker says:
I personally was outraged when I first read this morning's coverage of the Synod and the Bishop's remarks because the story made it seem like his comments, albeit personal, were somehow tied to the Vatican. It now seems that the demand of the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican for an apology and clarification while justified was misdirected.
I thought Mr. Goldman's essay was excellent in all regards and I found the comments above to be provocative and interesting. As a cradle Roman Catholic, I am thankful for his clarification and explanation.
I thought Mr. Goldman's essay was excellent in all regards and I found the comments above to be provocative and interesting. As a cradle Roman Catholic, I am thankful for his clarification and explanation.
10.25.2010 | 3:59pm
Stephenn Golay says:
Boy, has this discussion been instructive. Shows, first that Mr. Goldman knowshow to get to the nut of an issue and pry open its meat!
Does also, for me, evoke memories of my years worshiping with Arab Christians in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (Damascus Patriarchate). Yes, there is such a thing as "islamo-Christianity". It is a crippled and crippling way of looking about the world, let alone the Church and Jews. To permit such a deformity breathing space to inform the character and teaching of the Church was and is painful to watch
Supersussionism is a heresy that needs vigilant and constant exposure. It is a many-head snake that has slithered and hissed across the centuries. One way for the Vatican to stomp its heel on at least one of its heads is to take Goldman's "theology of demographics" to heart. There's a synod for you! One of the issue that can be raised would be an airing (for the whole world) of all those cultures and peoples Islam destroyed and subsumed in its genocidal crusade across the Middle East and North Africa (let alone the Caucasus and the Balkans).
Or, maybe, the bishops can gather at the Vatican to affirm the back (other) side of the Council of Ephesus; that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is not only Theotokos (Mother of God) she is also Mother of the Flesh that (according to Christian dogma) God took on and into Himself - which was, in its particularity, Jewish. Jewish Flesh elected! Or to put it other, at the Ascension of the risen Christ, what sat down at the Father's right hand (and stood at Stephen the Deacon's martyrdom, was Jewish Flesh. Chosen. Elected. Crowned.
Yes, yes, I know. Little old layman me am stepping into dogmatic territory I am not credited to enter. If such a synod as this is convened I'd be happy to draft the closing statement - am sure no Melkite bishop will step forward.
Does also, for me, evoke memories of my years worshiping with Arab Christians in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (Damascus Patriarchate). Yes, there is such a thing as "islamo-Christianity". It is a crippled and crippling way of looking about the world, let alone the Church and Jews. To permit such a deformity breathing space to inform the character and teaching of the Church was and is painful to watch
Supersussionism is a heresy that needs vigilant and constant exposure. It is a many-head snake that has slithered and hissed across the centuries. One way for the Vatican to stomp its heel on at least one of its heads is to take Goldman's "theology of demographics" to heart. There's a synod for you! One of the issue that can be raised would be an airing (for the whole world) of all those cultures and peoples Islam destroyed and subsumed in its genocidal crusade across the Middle East and North Africa (let alone the Caucasus and the Balkans).
Or, maybe, the bishops can gather at the Vatican to affirm the back (other) side of the Council of Ephesus; that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is not only Theotokos (Mother of God) she is also Mother of the Flesh that (according to Christian dogma) God took on and into Himself - which was, in its particularity, Jewish. Jewish Flesh elected! Or to put it other, at the Ascension of the risen Christ, what sat down at the Father's right hand (and stood at Stephen the Deacon's martyrdom, was Jewish Flesh. Chosen. Elected. Crowned.
Yes, yes, I know. Little old layman me am stepping into dogmatic territory I am not credited to enter. If such a synod as this is convened I'd be happy to draft the closing statement - am sure no Melkite bishop will step forward.
10.25.2010 | 4:20pm
Bill Loughlin says:
Bravo Barbara! You took the words out of my mouth---or, more correctly---off my computer keyboard. I don't know what the good doctor meant in speculating about a Nazi schism had Pius XII assumed the bombastic, rhetorical attitude of a Keith Olberman or a Bill O'Reilly. As for excommunicating Hitler, Sister Margherita Marchione, in "Consensus & Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII", notes that the ex-priest James Carroll, made clear that his own excommunication meant nothing to him. Sister Margherita wondered:" Would it have mattered more to Hitler?" (Paulist Press, page 230.)
Papal critics, including Dr. Goldman cannot cling to their arguments without making a liar out of Albert Einstein, to say nothing of the editorialists at the New York Times.
It might be beneficial Dr. Goldman were he to acquaint himself with Chesterton's "The New Jerusalem." In the chapter dealing with "The Problem of Zionism," he writes: "Dr. Weizmannn is a man of large mind and human sympathies; and it is difficult to believe that any one with so fine a sense of humanity can be entirely empty of anything like a sense of humour. Yet, in the middle of a very temperate and magnanimous address on 'Zionist Policy,' he can actually say a thing like this, 'The Arabs need us with out knowledge, and our experience and our money. If they do not have us they will fall into the hands of others, they will fall among sharks.' . . . If the Zionists wish to quiet the fears of the Arabs, surely the first thing to do is to discover what the Arabs are afraid of. And very little investigation will reveal the simple truth that they are very much afraid of sharks; and that in their book of symbolic or heraldic zoology it is the Jew who is adorned with the dorsal fin and the crescent of cruel teeth."
Papal critics, including Dr. Goldman cannot cling to their arguments without making a liar out of Albert Einstein, to say nothing of the editorialists at the New York Times.
It might be beneficial Dr. Goldman were he to acquaint himself with Chesterton's "The New Jerusalem." In the chapter dealing with "The Problem of Zionism," he writes: "Dr. Weizmannn is a man of large mind and human sympathies; and it is difficult to believe that any one with so fine a sense of humanity can be entirely empty of anything like a sense of humour. Yet, in the middle of a very temperate and magnanimous address on 'Zionist Policy,' he can actually say a thing like this, 'The Arabs need us with out knowledge, and our experience and our money. If they do not have us they will fall into the hands of others, they will fall among sharks.' . . . If the Zionists wish to quiet the fears of the Arabs, surely the first thing to do is to discover what the Arabs are afraid of. And very little investigation will reveal the simple truth that they are very much afraid of sharks; and that in their book of symbolic or heraldic zoology it is the Jew who is adorned with the dorsal fin and the crescent of cruel teeth."
10.25.2010 | 4:25pm
JPA says:
JMJ
It would be funny if it weren't so absurd: the theology (sic) of Benedict XVI or John Paul II regarding supersessionism??? Individual Popes do not enjoy a prerogative to have an official theology that is more binding on Catholic consciences than Scripture (St. Paul's letters ... all of them), Tradition (every Church Father who wrote on the subject), and the Magisterium: read any Council documents about the promises of the OT - they are recognized as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Supersessionism, as one well-read reader pointed out, is simply an easy name for what St. Paul, and all authoritative church teaching since, has always taught about God's unique covenant.
The author of this article needs a proof-reader who is well-versed in theology before he sends to print/internet such confused statements.
It would be funny if it weren't so absurd: the theology (sic) of Benedict XVI or John Paul II regarding supersessionism??? Individual Popes do not enjoy a prerogative to have an official theology that is more binding on Catholic consciences than Scripture (St. Paul's letters ... all of them), Tradition (every Church Father who wrote on the subject), and the Magisterium: read any Council documents about the promises of the OT - they are recognized as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Supersessionism, as one well-read reader pointed out, is simply an easy name for what St. Paul, and all authoritative church teaching since, has always taught about God's unique covenant.
The author of this article needs a proof-reader who is well-versed in theology before he sends to print/internet such confused statements.
10.25.2010 | 4:38pm
Nicholas Jost says:
Stuart,
I'm going to have to echo Ethan here. Much of what Mr. Goldman says about the Eastern Christians I've heard from you, to whit: that they are nationalist, that they feel compelled to prove their relation to a culture that they share little blood with, and that the politics of that leads to Iranian hegemony. What did you feel was insulting? Surely the bishops weren't acting on their best behavior but they are under enormous strain in the same way bishops in the West tip-toe around feminism and homosexuality.
I'm going to have to echo Ethan here. Much of what Mr. Goldman says about the Eastern Christians I've heard from you, to whit: that they are nationalist, that they feel compelled to prove their relation to a culture that they share little blood with, and that the politics of that leads to Iranian hegemony. What did you feel was insulting? Surely the bishops weren't acting on their best behavior but they are under enormous strain in the same way bishops in the West tip-toe around feminism and homosexuality.
10.25.2010 | 4:40pm
pete says:
I was surprised at how much I agree with the author. Actually, the Catholic Faith has always taught since St. Paul that the Election of the Jewish PEOPLE is irreversable; it is also the common view that the Prophecies of the Return of the Jews to Israel is irreversible; that the Holocaust was a participation in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ and that is seen by the astute as the "cause" of the presence of Jews in the Holy Land. The Church DOES teach that the Mosaic Judaism of Temple Worship has continued into the Catholic worship of the Eucharist, fulfilling the Temple worship in the NEW Israel in Christ; that RABBINIC Judaism is a man made religion and not the continuity with the Mosaic Judaism.
Also CATHOLIC PROPHECY going back centuries envisions a final assault of Islam on the Christian West WHICH WILL BE DEFEATED BY FORCE and THAT brings about the conversion of the Muslims to Christianity. THAT is how the peace in the Middle East will come about and peace between those peoples and Israel.
BUT, the Church Hierarchy is RELUCTANT TO TRUST PROPHECY, EVEN PROPHECY THAT ROME ACCEPTS ( Fatima!). World events, however, will oblige the hierarchy to open its eyes fully at the Plan God has for Salvation History. The Church has always taught, since St. Paul, ONLY WHEN THE GENTILE NATIONS HAVE ENTERED THE CHURCH WILL THE JEWS AS A PEOPLE TO THE SAME AND THE RETURN OF CHRIST, THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THE JUDGMENT WILL FOLLOW. That is not around the corner now, but the conflict with Islam IS.
Also CATHOLIC PROPHECY going back centuries envisions a final assault of Islam on the Christian West WHICH WILL BE DEFEATED BY FORCE and THAT brings about the conversion of the Muslims to Christianity. THAT is how the peace in the Middle East will come about and peace between those peoples and Israel.
BUT, the Church Hierarchy is RELUCTANT TO TRUST PROPHECY, EVEN PROPHECY THAT ROME ACCEPTS ( Fatima!). World events, however, will oblige the hierarchy to open its eyes fully at the Plan God has for Salvation History. The Church has always taught, since St. Paul, ONLY WHEN THE GENTILE NATIONS HAVE ENTERED THE CHURCH WILL THE JEWS AS A PEOPLE TO THE SAME AND THE RETURN OF CHRIST, THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THE JUDGMENT WILL FOLLOW. That is not around the corner now, but the conflict with Islam IS.
10.25.2010 | 5:22pm
Gil Costello says:
For me the crucial point is that too many Catholics, as Church, have weakened the Church by abandoning its Jewish roots, and this pains me. At my parish a guest speaker was brought in to explain the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and what followed was a soft-spoken though thoroughly anti-Semitic tirade on how all the problems stem from Jews. At the end of the presentation the speaker said that the only legitimate voice on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is Hamas.
When I afterwards approached the leader of our Peace and Justice Committee who had scheduled the presentation and I offered my complaint, her answer was: “I thought it was a reasoned and fair overview of the problem.”
We don’t talk enough about this new rise in anti-Semitism within the Church and how it parallels the same anti-Semitism that preceded Hitler’s rise to power. It is not only a distancing ourselves from our Jewish roots, but from the magisterium as well. In the Vatican II exhortation to reestablish an understanding that the People of God is Church (valid in itself), too many Catholics have forgotten that the foundation Jesus established for the People of God is the apostles, and that the apostles in unison with Jesus established their understanding of salvation history in the life of the Jews, including Jesus and the apostles, excepting Luke, who, in my opinion, was God’s example of our Jewish roots taking hold already in the life of gentiles.
We Christians are required to love our enemies. Can we not find a way to love our brethren who were chosen and entrusted by God to carry the Law for many centuries to its fulfillment in Christ? The Law is still valid, the basis of any real understanding of natural law, just as God’s chosen ones, whom God will not void his promise to, remain our dear ancestors in Christ. Is it really so difficult for a Christian to understand that being anti-Semitic is being the anti-Christ?
When I afterwards approached the leader of our Peace and Justice Committee who had scheduled the presentation and I offered my complaint, her answer was: “I thought it was a reasoned and fair overview of the problem.”
We don’t talk enough about this new rise in anti-Semitism within the Church and how it parallels the same anti-Semitism that preceded Hitler’s rise to power. It is not only a distancing ourselves from our Jewish roots, but from the magisterium as well. In the Vatican II exhortation to reestablish an understanding that the People of God is Church (valid in itself), too many Catholics have forgotten that the foundation Jesus established for the People of God is the apostles, and that the apostles in unison with Jesus established their understanding of salvation history in the life of the Jews, including Jesus and the apostles, excepting Luke, who, in my opinion, was God’s example of our Jewish roots taking hold already in the life of gentiles.
We Christians are required to love our enemies. Can we not find a way to love our brethren who were chosen and entrusted by God to carry the Law for many centuries to its fulfillment in Christ? The Law is still valid, the basis of any real understanding of natural law, just as God’s chosen ones, whom God will not void his promise to, remain our dear ancestors in Christ. Is it really so difficult for a Christian to understand that being anti-Semitic is being the anti-Christ?
10.25.2010 | 6:03pm
Thomas R says:
"Their actual numbers are much smaller."
I'm curious what you're source on this is. Also the Melkites, despite the name, I'm pretty sure are Near Eastern and not Greek so I don't know what Greek fertility rates have to do with anything. I guess I understand your annoyance, but being Catholic the rather dismissive tone you give to an entire rite (and not just one member of it) irritates me.
I'm curious what you're source on this is. Also the Melkites, despite the name, I'm pretty sure are Near Eastern and not Greek so I don't know what Greek fertility rates have to do with anything. I guess I understand your annoyance, but being Catholic the rather dismissive tone you give to an entire rite (and not just one member of it) irritates me.
10.25.2010 | 7:56pm
Harold says:
Cyril Salim Bustros is a blatant hypocrite. He criticizes Jews for the theology of a "promised land" then turns right around and uses his own theological propaganda ("everybody's chosen") to bolster his position that the Jews have no right to a homeland and no right to self-determination. Second, he is clearly ignorant of the original 1947 UN plan to partition Palestine, which was to grant TWO PEOPLES, BOTH JEWS AND PALESTINIAN ARABS ALIKE, their own homeland. The Jews agreed to this plan. The Arabs rejected it wholesale, opting instead for the genocidal solution of driving the Jews into the sea. So Bustros is both ignorant and hypocritical.
10.25.2010 | 8:37pm
patricksarsfield says:
The author makes a point about Catholicism in Europe that is just wrong:
"With hindsight, one might speculate that things would have turned out better for the Church if he had done so. Christianity is fading in all of Europe except Poland, and Poland’s startling rate of population decline does not bode well for the future. If the wartime Vatican had taken a moral stand against Nazism, the outcome might or might not have been different; the Church might have emerged from the war with the moral authority to stand against the secular tide that has swamped it. But there was no way for Pius XII to have known this in 1943."
Putting aside the author's left-handed attack on Pope Pius XII, I will just address his curious view of the past 65 years of Church History. Although he triumphantly proclaims the fertility of the Israelis (a fertility that, ironically, would be "swamped" by Palestinian fecundity but for the the division of the Mandate into three mini-states), he dismisses Catholicism as fading in Europe. In truth, though, there are hundreds of Millions of Catholics in Europe (i.e., many times more people than there are Jews in either Israel or the World as a whole).
The Church, moreover, is the institution in Europe that was "swamped" the least by the post-war changes that racked the Continent. While the Spanish Kingdom and the Third Republic had fallen before or at the start of WWII and the Third Reich fell in the War and the Italian Kingdom and the British Empire (thankfully) fell shortly after the War, the Catholic Church has continued run as always by the successors of Peter. Although its mortal enemy, Stalinism, took over significant parts of Catholic Europe, the Church adapted to another set of governments that sought to usurp the function of the Church everywhere behind the Iron Curtain. Although that struggle was a close run thing, the Church survived and beat back Communism by patience and faithfulness.
In the West, the Church is unquestionably challenged by an agnostic capitalism that would certainly like to marginalize the Church, but its "secular children" are no less faithful to the Church than secular jews are to Judaism. In other words, Modernity is clearly a challenge to all religions, but no more so in Western Europe than it is in Jewish areas, whether in Tel Aviv, the resorts at Eilat or Miami Beach or on the Upper West Side.
While an aggressive Islam is crescent in Europe, the European polity is starting to address the challenge. In all likelihood, Time will show that Catholicism will no more die as a result of this assault than it did when Martin Luther started out so aggressively. His reformation led to the Counter-Reformation and today Lutheranism (except perhaps in Papua??) is much more of a backwater than Catholicism has ever been. In fact, the persistence of Catholicism in the face of so many assaults on it since the Reformation is a cause for Hope, not despair.
"
"With hindsight, one might speculate that things would have turned out better for the Church if he had done so. Christianity is fading in all of Europe except Poland, and Poland’s startling rate of population decline does not bode well for the future. If the wartime Vatican had taken a moral stand against Nazism, the outcome might or might not have been different; the Church might have emerged from the war with the moral authority to stand against the secular tide that has swamped it. But there was no way for Pius XII to have known this in 1943."
Putting aside the author's left-handed attack on Pope Pius XII, I will just address his curious view of the past 65 years of Church History. Although he triumphantly proclaims the fertility of the Israelis (a fertility that, ironically, would be "swamped" by Palestinian fecundity but for the the division of the Mandate into three mini-states), he dismisses Catholicism as fading in Europe. In truth, though, there are hundreds of Millions of Catholics in Europe (i.e., many times more people than there are Jews in either Israel or the World as a whole).
The Church, moreover, is the institution in Europe that was "swamped" the least by the post-war changes that racked the Continent. While the Spanish Kingdom and the Third Republic had fallen before or at the start of WWII and the Third Reich fell in the War and the Italian Kingdom and the British Empire (thankfully) fell shortly after the War, the Catholic Church has continued run as always by the successors of Peter. Although its mortal enemy, Stalinism, took over significant parts of Catholic Europe, the Church adapted to another set of governments that sought to usurp the function of the Church everywhere behind the Iron Curtain. Although that struggle was a close run thing, the Church survived and beat back Communism by patience and faithfulness.
In the West, the Church is unquestionably challenged by an agnostic capitalism that would certainly like to marginalize the Church, but its "secular children" are no less faithful to the Church than secular jews are to Judaism. In other words, Modernity is clearly a challenge to all religions, but no more so in Western Europe than it is in Jewish areas, whether in Tel Aviv, the resorts at Eilat or Miami Beach or on the Upper West Side.
While an aggressive Islam is crescent in Europe, the European polity is starting to address the challenge. In all likelihood, Time will show that Catholicism will no more die as a result of this assault than it did when Martin Luther started out so aggressively. His reformation led to the Counter-Reformation and today Lutheranism (except perhaps in Papua??) is much more of a backwater than Catholicism has ever been. In fact, the persistence of Catholicism in the face of so many assaults on it since the Reformation is a cause for Hope, not despair.
"
10.25.2010 | 9:36pm
Gil Costello says:
patricksarsfield - yes, to your "...the persistence of Catholicism in the face of so many assaults on it since the Reformation is a cause for Hope, not despair." You make clear the evidence that the gates of hell has not and will not prevail against the Church. But at the core of what Goldman is purporting, in my view, is an exploration of the rising anti-Semitism in Christianity.
I don't think Goldman in any way made a left-handed attack on Pope Pius XII. I, too, have reflected on what the pope might have accomplished or not accomplished if he had made a more open criticism of Nazism. But at no point do I consider him less than a saint in his love for humanity, including Jews. And I detected nothing in what Goldman wrote that impugns the pope as lacking in love, what all Christians are called to.
Consider also the assault on Catholicism not only from exterior forces but from within, including the rising anti-Semitism. I believe this more than anything moved then-Cardinal Ratzinger to say what Goldman quotes:
"We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."
The subsuming of the Catholic faith into politics and psychology (together producing dangerous ideologies) not only in Europe but here in America continues to be the ultimate threat, and it is the rare priest that has not in his ideological sleep succumbed to the pods of his ideology.
I don't think Goldman in any way made a left-handed attack on Pope Pius XII. I, too, have reflected on what the pope might have accomplished or not accomplished if he had made a more open criticism of Nazism. But at no point do I consider him less than a saint in his love for humanity, including Jews. And I detected nothing in what Goldman wrote that impugns the pope as lacking in love, what all Christians are called to.
Consider also the assault on Catholicism not only from exterior forces but from within, including the rising anti-Semitism. I believe this more than anything moved then-Cardinal Ratzinger to say what Goldman quotes:
"We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."
The subsuming of the Catholic faith into politics and psychology (together producing dangerous ideologies) not only in Europe but here in America continues to be the ultimate threat, and it is the rare priest that has not in his ideological sleep succumbed to the pods of his ideology.
10.25.2010 | 9:54pm
Richard says:
I realize that the issues discussed here are heartfelt and very important, but in a world brimming with destructive personalities and causes I hate to see so many good people slugging it out.
I will say this: as a Catholic Christian my view is that the Jews have been, are, and always will be the people God chose to make all people his chosen ones.
They are my spiritual parents and I venerate them. May we all be one in the eschaton.
Best,
Richard
I will say this: as a Catholic Christian my view is that the Jews have been, are, and always will be the people God chose to make all people his chosen ones.
They are my spiritual parents and I venerate them. May we all be one in the eschaton.
Best,
Richard
10.25.2010 | 9:55pm
David Goldman says:
What do I need to write to make clear that I do not think that Pius XII can be blamed for the murder of European Jews, but that he can be thanked for saving those he could WITHOUT a confrontation with the Nazis? Everyone is so defensive about this, understandably, I suppose, after all the vilification. Nonetheless, the position of the Catholic Church in most of Europe is dire; read George Weigel's book, "The Cube and the Cathedral." Or just look at the demographic data. Europe's total fertility is now just 1.5. At that rate there won't be very many people to be Catholics even if they wish to be. And no-one will convince me that faith is strong in a place where people simply don't have children.
10.25.2010 | 10:02pm
Gil Costello says:
I just want to add - being a cinefile - a recommendation to assist those who would want to explore artistically Goldman's statement that "The ambitions of Arab Christians grew after the Turks killed or expelled close to four million Greek and Armenian Orthodox Christians between 1915 and 1923": Atom Egoyan's "Ararat". I recommend this film because even in America today most Christian leaders support the delusion that this genocide never took place, all in the name of sustaining good relations with Turkey.
I just don't see how suppressing the truth will set us free.
I just don't see how suppressing the truth will set us free.
10.25.2010 | 10:31pm
steve says:
How long will First Things subject Catholics to Mr. Goldman's willfully ignorant lectures on Catholic theology?
10.25.2010 | 10:34pm
Pratolan says:
Dr. Goldman:
Your articles are always thought-provoking, lucid, and enjoyable. However, you do not come up to your usual precision of language when you write about the headline in Israel Today: "that's not quite true". Actually, Dr. Goldman, it is completely false and a case of irresponsible journalism. I wish you had been stronger in your correction.
Your articles are always thought-provoking, lucid, and enjoyable. However, you do not come up to your usual precision of language when you write about the headline in Israel Today: "that's not quite true". Actually, Dr. Goldman, it is completely false and a case of irresponsible journalism. I wish you had been stronger in your correction.
10.25.2010 | 11:48pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Goldman writes:
"What do I need to write to make clear that I do not think that Pius XII can be blamed for the murder of European Jews, but that he can be thanked for saving those he could WITHOUT a confrontation with the Nazis? Everyone is so defensive about this, understandably, I suppose, after all the vilification."
Mr. Goldman actually does not need to write anything. He needs, instead, to unwrite what he wrote above, specifically: "If the wartime Vatican had taken a moral stand against Nazism, the outcome might or might not have been different; the Church might have emerged from the war with the moral authority to stand against the secular tide that has swamped it. "
The clear import of that passage is that the Church did not emerge from WWII with moral authority. That however is not true. As I pointed out in my first post, the Church did emerge from WWII as the only moral authority in Europe that was not swamped. Italy did not go Communist precisely because the Catholic Church did retain its moral authority. David Goldman may not have read Giovanni Guareschi's wonderful Don Camillo books from the 1950s about the struggle between Communism and Catholicism that went on in so many towns and villages of Italy, but I (and many other Catholic high school students of the 1960s) certainly did.
Likewise, Mr. Goldman may not have concerned himself with Cardinal Mindzenty's struggle against the Hungarian Communist Dictatorship but the freedom fighters of 1956 Hungary did. Mr. Goldman may have forgotten the heroic sacrifices of the Polish Catholic Church led by its Primate throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s but the people of Poland will never forget them. Clearly, the Catholic Church spent most of the rest of the Twentieth Century contesting with Soviet Communism for the hearts and minds of Europe.
It prevailed and survived the Communist Age precisely because it did retain its moral authority at the end of WWII, just as it emerged from the French Revolution/Napoleonic Empire intract despite the imprisonment of the two regnant popes during that Period. The French Revolution toppled the statues on Notre Dame and created a State-controlled Church, and then imprisoned Pius VI until he died. Pius VII tried to get along with Napoleon and also ended up in a French imprisonment. Yet when the Little Corporal was shipped off to Elba, Pius returned to Rome and was greeted all along the way by the faithful. Pius XII's standing at the End of WWII was likewise very high. The attacks on his conduct in WWII did not start until 1962 and recent revelations show that the Soviets were deeply involved in the propagation of the Deputy's storyline. In that regard, Romanian Top Spy Ion Pacepa has detailed the efforts to which Khruschev went precisely to undermine the Vatican's "moral authority" after Pius's death. This is a snippet from Pacepa's 2007 National Review article:
"In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe. The idea was the brainchild of KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and Aleksey Kirichenko, the Soviet Politburo member responsible for international policies. Up until that time, the KGB had fought its “mortal enemy” in Eastern Europe, where the Holy See had been crudely attacked as a cesspool of espionage in the pay of American imperialism, and its representatives had been summarily jailed as spies. Now Moscow wanted the Vatican discredited by its own priests, on its home territory, as a bastion of Nazism.
Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB’s main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958...."
This is the real history of the Catholic Church, not Goldman's demography is destiny silliness. Is there an aggressively secularist force about in Europe today? Sure, but it is the same secularist force that is pushing throughout the rest of the First World whether in North America, Australia, Japan or Israel. The Church has been assaulted in turn by many enemies. It has ever been thus throughout the last 2000 years.
Sometimes, it looks (to some) like the light of Catholicism will be put out forever. It has supposed to be that way in England many times, most recently on the eve of Pope Benedict's recent visit when the usual suspects from Ian Paisley through Christopher Hitchens to the anti-Catholic homosexual activists bayed together against the Pope. How dare he visit Secular England! All sorts of dire predictions were made about the flop that Benedict's visit surely would be. Yet they were wrong.
I trust that when the History of the Next Fifty Years is written, Catholicism will not have disappeared from Europe. Nor is it likkely that the people of Israel--however fecund--will have grown to outnumber the Pope's European Catholic flock...not by a long shot.
"What do I need to write to make clear that I do not think that Pius XII can be blamed for the murder of European Jews, but that he can be thanked for saving those he could WITHOUT a confrontation with the Nazis? Everyone is so defensive about this, understandably, I suppose, after all the vilification."
Mr. Goldman actually does not need to write anything. He needs, instead, to unwrite what he wrote above, specifically: "If the wartime Vatican had taken a moral stand against Nazism, the outcome might or might not have been different; the Church might have emerged from the war with the moral authority to stand against the secular tide that has swamped it. "
The clear import of that passage is that the Church did not emerge from WWII with moral authority. That however is not true. As I pointed out in my first post, the Church did emerge from WWII as the only moral authority in Europe that was not swamped. Italy did not go Communist precisely because the Catholic Church did retain its moral authority. David Goldman may not have read Giovanni Guareschi's wonderful Don Camillo books from the 1950s about the struggle between Communism and Catholicism that went on in so many towns and villages of Italy, but I (and many other Catholic high school students of the 1960s) certainly did.
Likewise, Mr. Goldman may not have concerned himself with Cardinal Mindzenty's struggle against the Hungarian Communist Dictatorship but the freedom fighters of 1956 Hungary did. Mr. Goldman may have forgotten the heroic sacrifices of the Polish Catholic Church led by its Primate throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s but the people of Poland will never forget them. Clearly, the Catholic Church spent most of the rest of the Twentieth Century contesting with Soviet Communism for the hearts and minds of Europe.
It prevailed and survived the Communist Age precisely because it did retain its moral authority at the end of WWII, just as it emerged from the French Revolution/Napoleonic Empire intract despite the imprisonment of the two regnant popes during that Period. The French Revolution toppled the statues on Notre Dame and created a State-controlled Church, and then imprisoned Pius VI until he died. Pius VII tried to get along with Napoleon and also ended up in a French imprisonment. Yet when the Little Corporal was shipped off to Elba, Pius returned to Rome and was greeted all along the way by the faithful. Pius XII's standing at the End of WWII was likewise very high. The attacks on his conduct in WWII did not start until 1962 and recent revelations show that the Soviets were deeply involved in the propagation of the Deputy's storyline. In that regard, Romanian Top Spy Ion Pacepa has detailed the efforts to which Khruschev went precisely to undermine the Vatican's "moral authority" after Pius's death. This is a snippet from Pacepa's 2007 National Review article:
"In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe. The idea was the brainchild of KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and Aleksey Kirichenko, the Soviet Politburo member responsible for international policies. Up until that time, the KGB had fought its “mortal enemy” in Eastern Europe, where the Holy See had been crudely attacked as a cesspool of espionage in the pay of American imperialism, and its representatives had been summarily jailed as spies. Now Moscow wanted the Vatican discredited by its own priests, on its home territory, as a bastion of Nazism.
Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB’s main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958...."
This is the real history of the Catholic Church, not Goldman's demography is destiny silliness. Is there an aggressively secularist force about in Europe today? Sure, but it is the same secularist force that is pushing throughout the rest of the First World whether in North America, Australia, Japan or Israel. The Church has been assaulted in turn by many enemies. It has ever been thus throughout the last 2000 years.
Sometimes, it looks (to some) like the light of Catholicism will be put out forever. It has supposed to be that way in England many times, most recently on the eve of Pope Benedict's recent visit when the usual suspects from Ian Paisley through Christopher Hitchens to the anti-Catholic homosexual activists bayed together against the Pope. How dare he visit Secular England! All sorts of dire predictions were made about the flop that Benedict's visit surely would be. Yet they were wrong.
I trust that when the History of the Next Fifty Years is written, Catholicism will not have disappeared from Europe. Nor is it likkely that the people of Israel--however fecund--will have grown to outnumber the Pope's European Catholic flock...not by a long shot.
10.26.2010 | 12:04am
Eric Giunta says:
Dr Goldman:
None of Pope Benedict's remarks imply whatsoever that today's Jews have any *divine* right to live in the Holy Land with their own sovereign state, nor that the Jewish people do not need to convert to the true religion (i.e., Catholic Christianity) in order to have their eternal salvation assured. Those Jews who remain outside the true Church certainly have a special relationship with that Church that Muslims and other non-Christians don't, and the Church is adamant in teaching that God's Providence has a special purpose for permitting the infidelity of those Jews who remain outside the Church -- but this is NOT a Catholic version of that Evangelical dispensationalism that holds that post-Christian Rabinnical Judaism is a parallel salvific religion to Christianity, or that the founding of Israel in 1948 fulfilled Bible prophecy, nor that Jews have any inherent right to the land of Israel.
Any right Jews have to that land (and I believe they do have it) is because of recent history and geopolitics. They have no INHERENT right to that land as far as Catholics are concerned.
You and your Jewish brethren need to start butting out of Catholics' internal religious affairs, quit telling us what we have to believe, who/what we can/cannot pray for, whom we can/cannot canonize, etc.
I realize you're not nearly as egregious as many of your counterparts on the Jewish left, but your construal of the Pope's teaching on this matter is decontextualized, and relies more on sound-bites from the mainstream media and leftist Jewish outlets than it does the actual sources of Catholic doctrine.
None of Pope Benedict's remarks imply whatsoever that today's Jews have any *divine* right to live in the Holy Land with their own sovereign state, nor that the Jewish people do not need to convert to the true religion (i.e., Catholic Christianity) in order to have their eternal salvation assured. Those Jews who remain outside the true Church certainly have a special relationship with that Church that Muslims and other non-Christians don't, and the Church is adamant in teaching that God's Providence has a special purpose for permitting the infidelity of those Jews who remain outside the Church -- but this is NOT a Catholic version of that Evangelical dispensationalism that holds that post-Christian Rabinnical Judaism is a parallel salvific religion to Christianity, or that the founding of Israel in 1948 fulfilled Bible prophecy, nor that Jews have any inherent right to the land of Israel.
Any right Jews have to that land (and I believe they do have it) is because of recent history and geopolitics. They have no INHERENT right to that land as far as Catholics are concerned.
You and your Jewish brethren need to start butting out of Catholics' internal religious affairs, quit telling us what we have to believe, who/what we can/cannot pray for, whom we can/cannot canonize, etc.
I realize you're not nearly as egregious as many of your counterparts on the Jewish left, but your construal of the Pope's teaching on this matter is decontextualized, and relies more on sound-bites from the mainstream media and leftist Jewish outlets than it does the actual sources of Catholic doctrine.
10.26.2010 | 12:17am
J.J. Hayes says:
Man, passions fly when a Jew says something even remotely critical of the Church.
10.26.2010 | 12:55am
Michael says:
The comments on this thread revolve around the question of how best to win the war between Israel and Palestine, Christianity and Islam, etc. What Goldman hopes to do is bring both wars together so that Christians and Jews can together defeat Islam and protect Israel.
Missing in all this talk, of course, is the foundational Christian truth that Christians are not supposed to be waging war at all.
Jesus organized no armies. Christians did not join Jews in their revolt against Rome in 70. In the first century of Christianity, service in the army was largely seen as incompatible with being a Christian. In the early centuries, Christians were martyred in the hundreds by the most powerful and long-lived empire the world had known. When there was a break in the persecutions, Christians argued bitterly among themselves during the Novatianist controversy about whether one could be a faithful Christian and renounce Christianity rather than stand and risk martyrdom.
Constantine and Theodosius tempted Christians with state power, and Christianity has been deeply confused ever since.
A falling birthrate and a rising Islam may provoke panic in some, but a faithful Christian will trust in the Father as Jesus taught. While God made a Covenant with the nation of Israel, His second covenant was with no nation at all but with all humans, and that is something no birthrate or other faith can vanquish.
This will sound awfully naïve to those who have gotten used to relying on state power and the force of arms. But then no one expected much from a crucified Jew from a small town in a small corner of a vast empire. Christianity spread so far so fast because it separated itself from Roman culture and its worship of power.
The difference between faith and political calculation also appears in the controversy over the proper response to the Holocaust. In 250, the Roman emperor Decius required all to make sacrifice to the Roman gods, and he expected Christian bishops to lead the way for their flocks. The Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem each accepted martyrdom while the Bishop of Smyrna made sacrifice to the Roman gods. Who was the better leader? In the 1940s, whose example should the bishops of Germany and of Rome have followed?
Missing in all this talk, of course, is the foundational Christian truth that Christians are not supposed to be waging war at all.
Jesus organized no armies. Christians did not join Jews in their revolt against Rome in 70. In the first century of Christianity, service in the army was largely seen as incompatible with being a Christian. In the early centuries, Christians were martyred in the hundreds by the most powerful and long-lived empire the world had known. When there was a break in the persecutions, Christians argued bitterly among themselves during the Novatianist controversy about whether one could be a faithful Christian and renounce Christianity rather than stand and risk martyrdom.
Constantine and Theodosius tempted Christians with state power, and Christianity has been deeply confused ever since.
A falling birthrate and a rising Islam may provoke panic in some, but a faithful Christian will trust in the Father as Jesus taught. While God made a Covenant with the nation of Israel, His second covenant was with no nation at all but with all humans, and that is something no birthrate or other faith can vanquish.
This will sound awfully naïve to those who have gotten used to relying on state power and the force of arms. But then no one expected much from a crucified Jew from a small town in a small corner of a vast empire. Christianity spread so far so fast because it separated itself from Roman culture and its worship of power.
The difference between faith and political calculation also appears in the controversy over the proper response to the Holocaust. In 250, the Roman emperor Decius required all to make sacrifice to the Roman gods, and he expected Christian bishops to lead the way for their flocks. The Bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem each accepted martyrdom while the Bishop of Smyrna made sacrifice to the Roman gods. Who was the better leader? In the 1940s, whose example should the bishops of Germany and of Rome have followed?
10.26.2010 | 1:06am
patricksarsfield says:
J J Hayes writes:
"Man, passions fly when a Jew says something even remotely critical of the Church. "
No more so than the reaction of Jews when a Melkite bishop says something critical of the State of Israel, nu?
"Man, passions fly when a Jew says something even remotely critical of the Church. "
No more so than the reaction of Jews when a Melkite bishop says something critical of the State of Israel, nu?
10.26.2010 | 3:48am
Eric Giunta says:
Some more VATICAN II ERA citations for Dr Goldman to consider:
"In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church stated that God 'chose the race of Israel as a people' and 'set up a covenant' with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, 'all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant' instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In 'Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism' (1985), the Church stated that the 'Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.'
"And in 'Dominus Iesus' (2000), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states, 'There is only one salvific economy' (no. 12), and 'God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. . . . The certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ' (no. 22)
"While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: 'God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.'
"Catholic theologian Brian Harrison has offered the following definition of 'supersessionism' that he believes to comport with Catholic teaching:
"What, then, is supersessionism? The word designates the traditional Christian belief that the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the 'New Covenant' of Jesus Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#Roman_Catholicism
"In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church stated that God 'chose the race of Israel as a people' and 'set up a covenant' with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, 'all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant' instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In 'Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism' (1985), the Church stated that the 'Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.'
"And in 'Dominus Iesus' (2000), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states, 'There is only one salvific economy' (no. 12), and 'God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. . . . The certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ' (no. 22)
"While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: 'God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.'
"Catholic theologian Brian Harrison has offered the following definition of 'supersessionism' that he believes to comport with Catholic teaching:
"What, then, is supersessionism? The word designates the traditional Christian belief that the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the 'New Covenant' of Jesus Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism#Roman_Catholicism
10.26.2010 | 4:11am
Eric Giunta says:
JJ Hayes:
What we're sick and tired of is the Jewish Lobby butting their noses into the internal affairs of the Catholic religion, implying that any and all criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and subjecting we non-Jews to a perpetual guilt trip over historic anti-Judaism. For instance, how much longer do we need to bear with the old canard (akin to a blood libel) that it was only at Vatican II that the Catholic Church "acquitted" the Jews of deicide? Our Church has N-E-V-E-R taught that. Are Jewish spokespersons so ignorant that they cannot distinguish between Church doctrine and popular superstition?
We're sick and tired of being told what we can pray for, who we can canonize, what we have to tailor our soteriology around, etc. Dr Goldman is BY FAR not the worst offender - but on the particular issue of the relationship of the Church to Judaism, he's bought into the propaganda of the Jewish establishment, when he should be taking his cues from official Catholic sources, NONE of which say that the Church's evangelizing mission has an exception clause pertaining to Jewish persons, NONE OF WHICH claim that Jews have a God-given right to a modern nation state, and NONE OF WHICH have repudiated the BASIC premise of Christianity 101 that Jesus Christ fulfilled the ritual and ceremonial precepts of the Torah and rendered them superfluous. Whatever value they have now is purely symbolic; as far as Catholicism is concerned, no one is obligated to observe them. There is no parallel covenant, only one covenant, and the Catholic Church is Judaism's institutional successor. I've documented this copiously, above.
(None of this, by the way, is to say that those Jews who remain outside the true religion serve no purpose under God's permissive Providence. This is why ours is not the crude supercessionism of, say, sects like Jehovah's Witnesses.)
What we're sick and tired of is the Jewish Lobby butting their noses into the internal affairs of the Catholic religion, implying that any and all criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and subjecting we non-Jews to a perpetual guilt trip over historic anti-Judaism. For instance, how much longer do we need to bear with the old canard (akin to a blood libel) that it was only at Vatican II that the Catholic Church "acquitted" the Jews of deicide? Our Church has N-E-V-E-R taught that. Are Jewish spokespersons so ignorant that they cannot distinguish between Church doctrine and popular superstition?
We're sick and tired of being told what we can pray for, who we can canonize, what we have to tailor our soteriology around, etc. Dr Goldman is BY FAR not the worst offender - but on the particular issue of the relationship of the Church to Judaism, he's bought into the propaganda of the Jewish establishment, when he should be taking his cues from official Catholic sources, NONE of which say that the Church's evangelizing mission has an exception clause pertaining to Jewish persons, NONE OF WHICH claim that Jews have a God-given right to a modern nation state, and NONE OF WHICH have repudiated the BASIC premise of Christianity 101 that Jesus Christ fulfilled the ritual and ceremonial precepts of the Torah and rendered them superfluous. Whatever value they have now is purely symbolic; as far as Catholicism is concerned, no one is obligated to observe them. There is no parallel covenant, only one covenant, and the Catholic Church is Judaism's institutional successor. I've documented this copiously, above.
(None of this, by the way, is to say that those Jews who remain outside the true religion serve no purpose under God's permissive Providence. This is why ours is not the crude supercessionism of, say, sects like Jehovah's Witnesses.)
10.26.2010 | 5:19am
Maureen Gardner says:
All the facts listed above about Pope Pius's WWII record ignores vital information that cannot help but put him in a negative light:
1) The fact that the Vatican refused to open its Pius archives during WWII to a Commission of Christian and Jewish scholars suggests unpleasant facts coming to light.
2) No one here seems aware of the connections of Pius II to the brutal Utasha regime run by Catholic priests which murdered and plundered hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Jews and which worked together with the Nazis.
3) Hasn't anyone here heard of the "Rat Line" run by the Vatican to save Nazi criminals after WWII?
4) A U.S. court case was terminated only a year ago on sovereignty grounds suing the Vatican for receiving stolen WWII and Holocaust gold. The lawyer in this case said for the record: Instead of making a clean break with its crimes, the Vatican continues to lie and cover up. The evidence against Pius is immense - deaths of Jews in Hungary, Slovakia, and Croatia could have been prevented 100%. The Vatican always fails to mention that the ruler of Slovakia, Tiso and the Hlinka founder of the fascist movement there, were both priests!
5) Even if Piux XII felt constrained during WWII not to openly oppose the Nazis to save Christians, there was numerous things he could have done to express his opposition to murdering Jews -- as the King of Denmark did for instance. He could have sent instructions to congregations throughout Europe to oppose Nazi efforts to kill Jews. He could have announced that anyone who takes part in killing Jews will go to hell. If he really wanted to show a moral position, there were numerous ways to do it without endangering his position. The Nazis could not have overcome the resistance of the entire Catholic population of Europe, if the pope would have galvanized it. Unfortunately, the record usually shows that the more Catholic the country, the more Jews were persecuted and murdered, and numerous bishops and archbishops participated in the Nazi's evil deeds against the Jews. The few who didn't do not salvage the many who did.
6) While many monasteries and convents helped save Jewish children, few of them made any effort to return these children to their relatives or the Jewish people — putting into question whether this was a truly humanitarian effort or exploiting a tragedy to "save" Jewish souls.
7) The impressive effects listed above of how Piux XII fought Communism arouses the question why he didn't invest similar efforts to save Jews during WWII?
8) For more information about Pius XII, see the following books: Pius XII & The Cold War (Professor Michael Phayer) which brings numerous facts of Pius XII's relationship with the Utasha regime.
1) The fact that the Vatican refused to open its Pius archives during WWII to a Commission of Christian and Jewish scholars suggests unpleasant facts coming to light.
2) No one here seems aware of the connections of Pius II to the brutal Utasha regime run by Catholic priests which murdered and plundered hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Jews and which worked together with the Nazis.
3) Hasn't anyone here heard of the "Rat Line" run by the Vatican to save Nazi criminals after WWII?
4) A U.S. court case was terminated only a year ago on sovereignty grounds suing the Vatican for receiving stolen WWII and Holocaust gold. The lawyer in this case said for the record: Instead of making a clean break with its crimes, the Vatican continues to lie and cover up. The evidence against Pius is immense - deaths of Jews in Hungary, Slovakia, and Croatia could have been prevented 100%. The Vatican always fails to mention that the ruler of Slovakia, Tiso and the Hlinka founder of the fascist movement there, were both priests!
5) Even if Piux XII felt constrained during WWII not to openly oppose the Nazis to save Christians, there was numerous things he could have done to express his opposition to murdering Jews -- as the King of Denmark did for instance. He could have sent instructions to congregations throughout Europe to oppose Nazi efforts to kill Jews. He could have announced that anyone who takes part in killing Jews will go to hell. If he really wanted to show a moral position, there were numerous ways to do it without endangering his position. The Nazis could not have overcome the resistance of the entire Catholic population of Europe, if the pope would have galvanized it. Unfortunately, the record usually shows that the more Catholic the country, the more Jews were persecuted and murdered, and numerous bishops and archbishops participated in the Nazi's evil deeds against the Jews. The few who didn't do not salvage the many who did.
6) While many monasteries and convents helped save Jewish children, few of them made any effort to return these children to their relatives or the Jewish people — putting into question whether this was a truly humanitarian effort or exploiting a tragedy to "save" Jewish souls.
7) The impressive effects listed above of how Piux XII fought Communism arouses the question why he didn't invest similar efforts to save Jews during WWII?
8) For more information about Pius XII, see the following books: Pius XII & The Cold War (Professor Michael Phayer) which brings numerous facts of Pius XII's relationship with the Utasha regime.
10.26.2010 | 7:42am
Stuart Koehl says:
Ethan C wrote:
"I'd be interested to hear how you consider Melkite/Eastern Catholic history to affect Mr. Goldman's political point. Is he wrong about the Middle Eastern Christians being dominated by their Muslim rulers? I'm kind of unclear about what you find so objectionable about his analysis."
I'll start by saying that I frequently disagree with the Middle Eastern hierarchy of my Church on their political stance. However, after sixteen centuries of dhimmitude, I understand their position: they have to live in that neighborhood, and who is going to protect them from the depredations of their enemies? The Israelis? The Americans? The lesson that Middle Eastern Christians have absorbed down through the ages is to rely only upon their own wiles. As both the Melkite Greek Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchates are literally around the corner from each other in Damascus, capital of that bastion of enlightenment, Syria, and as the bulk of their faithful reside in Syria and Lebanon, did anyone really expect a full-throated call for support of the Jewish state? As I said, I don't agree, but I understand. That said, the position of Melkites living in America is considerably different--if not exactly pro-Israel, they have no time for any of the Palestinian factions or their Syrian and Iranian puppetmasters.
As to what I found objectionable in Goldman's analysis, it's mainly the tone of snark and derision. Some examples:
"At the just-concluded Synod of Middle East Bishops, a cleric from the tiny group of Melkite Greeks, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, made such a statement on behalf of the Melkites, not the Catholic Church."
Goldman apparently has little appreciation of the nature of Catholic ecclesiology post-Vatican II: the Catholic Church is a communion of particular Churches, each of which is internally independent and follows its own unique Tradition. Not to mention the Melkites aren't Greeks, but follow the Greek (or Byzantine) rite. From that misappreciation, Goldman compounds error with error.
"The head of the same church, the Syrian-based Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, also attacked priestly celibacy before the Synod. He wasn’t speaking for Rome, either. Clerical marriage hasn’t helped the Melkites; they claim just 1.3 million members worldwide, fewer than the Korean Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea. Their actual numbers are much smaller."
Apparently Goldman doesn't know that (a) married priests have always been an integral element of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike; and (b) that the Latin Church has repeatedly attempted to suppress that practice "outside the ancient boundaries" of these Churches; i.e., in North America, Europe and Australia, where large numbers of Eastern Catholics actually live (we don't even get to elect our own bishops outside of those "ancient boundaries"--Rome appoints them for us, but, for some reason, our Patriarchs don't get to appoint the Latin bishops INSIDE our "ancient boundaries", which is both hypocritical and insulting).
As to the size of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, it was never large, having split off from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in 1724. The Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate, in turn, represented only the Chalcedonian rump of the Church of Antioch (the term "Melkite" means "King's Party", that is, those who continued to follow the policy of the Byzantine Empire), the majority of which, rejecting the Council of Chalcedon, became one of the Oriental Orthodox (previously known--falsely--as "monophysite") Churches. So the Melkites are a minority of a minority, but still part of a Christian community which has survived not merely sixteen centuries of Muslim oppression, but also the periodic hostility of the Church of Rome to its ancient practices and Tradition.
That said, Goldman sneers at the miniscule size of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, but is apparently ignorant of its prominence in recent Catholic history. We'll leave aside that in Catholic ecclesiology, all true Churches are equal in grace and dignity (as are all Patriarchs, for that matter). The Syrian Catholic Church is even smaller, with barely 50,000 members, but it is equal in grace and dignity with the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and even the Church of Rome; its Patriarch, like Patriarch Gregorios III, is a brother to the Patriarch of the West, who is, of course, Pope Benedict XVI.
The Melkites have been among the most theologically influential groups within the Catholic Church since the middle of the 20th century. They dominated the Second Vatican Council out of all proportion to their numbers. The so-called "Cairo School" of theology was in the forefront of pushing the concept of an ecclesiology of communion; of treating the Eastern Catholic "rites" as true Churches with a distinct ecclesial identity; of recognizing the Eastern Orthodox as Sister Churches; of using the vernacular in liturgy, and of returning Catholic theology to it sources in the Fathers. There's even an excellent book on the subject, "The Melkites at the Vatican Council II: Contribution of the Melkite Prelates to Vatican Council II" by Saba Shofany, which is well worth reading.
So, I guess you could say the Melkites consistently punch above their weight--not that size matters, mind you. One itinerant rabbi and a dozen rag-tag fisherman, tax collectors and what have you changed the world.
"The concerns of Greek Christians will fade before long, for in two or three generations there will be no Greek Christians in the Middle East, nor indeed Christians of any sort in the Middle East. Nor, for that matter, will there be many Greeks; with a fertility rate of only 1.37 children per female, one of the world’s lowest, Greece by mid-century will have a population two-thirds of which exceeds the age of sixty, and very little population at all by the end of the century. In a hundred years, modern Greek will be a dying language."
Stupid and irrelevant. First, the Melkites are not Greeks, so the Greek TFR has no bearing on anything. The Melkites, it turns out, are quite a fecund bunch, who have more than enough children to meet replacement needs, not only in the Middle East, but here in the states (mine is a very young parish constantly getting younger as its members pop out three, four or more babies with great consistency).
Yes, Middle Eastern Christians, including the Melkites, are leaving the Middle East in droves. They have been leaving for the better part of a century because, well, they can. They are smart, educated, entrepreneurial and quite capable of making a living wherever they go. And many see more opportunity outside their ancestral homelands. Then, of course, there is the constant threat (and occasional reality) of Muslim persecution. For a while, the Middle Eastern Christians tried to be "good Arabs", in the same way that German Jews tried to be "good Germans", but to no avail--even after conversion to Islam, they remain second class because they are not (despite their language) Arabs. I might add that the Israeli government has on more than a few occasions been extremely ham-fisted in its dealings with the indigenous Christian communities, sometimes considering them nothing more than "Arabs with a funny mosque". So they leave. But that has nothing to do with Greek fertility rates.
"It seems incongruous that the leader of a tiny ethnic group that lectures Rome on the merits of priestly marriage would draft the final statement of a Vatican Synod on the Middle East. "
If the Melkites are an ethnic group, then I guess I, a descendants of Romanian Jews, Neapolitans, Sicilians and Germans, qualifies as a member. Goldman seems to think that the Catholic Churches are nothing more than denominations or perhaps franchises of the Roman Catholic Church--again, a failure to appreciate Catholic ecclesiology. Furthermore, this was a special synod of the Catholic Churches of the Middle East, of which Rome (despite the existence of a titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem) is not one. The purpose was to have the Catholic Churches indigenous to the Middle East--not just the Melkite Greek Catholics, but the Syrian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, the Chaldean Catholics and the Armenian Catholics--express their perspectives and present them to the Holy See. Goldman apparently sees the Catholic Church as a monolithic, top-down organization in which the Pope says "Hop, frog!" and every one else says "How high?" Well, it doesn't work that way, and Goldman's article would have been more effective if he had left out the sneering and had simply focused on the fact of the Eastern Christian predicament in the Holy Land.
"I'd be interested to hear how you consider Melkite/Eastern Catholic history to affect Mr. Goldman's political point. Is he wrong about the Middle Eastern Christians being dominated by their Muslim rulers? I'm kind of unclear about what you find so objectionable about his analysis."
I'll start by saying that I frequently disagree with the Middle Eastern hierarchy of my Church on their political stance. However, after sixteen centuries of dhimmitude, I understand their position: they have to live in that neighborhood, and who is going to protect them from the depredations of their enemies? The Israelis? The Americans? The lesson that Middle Eastern Christians have absorbed down through the ages is to rely only upon their own wiles. As both the Melkite Greek Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchates are literally around the corner from each other in Damascus, capital of that bastion of enlightenment, Syria, and as the bulk of their faithful reside in Syria and Lebanon, did anyone really expect a full-throated call for support of the Jewish state? As I said, I don't agree, but I understand. That said, the position of Melkites living in America is considerably different--if not exactly pro-Israel, they have no time for any of the Palestinian factions or their Syrian and Iranian puppetmasters.
As to what I found objectionable in Goldman's analysis, it's mainly the tone of snark and derision. Some examples:
"At the just-concluded Synod of Middle East Bishops, a cleric from the tiny group of Melkite Greeks, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, made such a statement on behalf of the Melkites, not the Catholic Church."
Goldman apparently has little appreciation of the nature of Catholic ecclesiology post-Vatican II: the Catholic Church is a communion of particular Churches, each of which is internally independent and follows its own unique Tradition. Not to mention the Melkites aren't Greeks, but follow the Greek (or Byzantine) rite. From that misappreciation, Goldman compounds error with error.
"The head of the same church, the Syrian-based Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, also attacked priestly celibacy before the Synod. He wasn’t speaking for Rome, either. Clerical marriage hasn’t helped the Melkites; they claim just 1.3 million members worldwide, fewer than the Korean Methodist Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea. Their actual numbers are much smaller."
Apparently Goldman doesn't know that (a) married priests have always been an integral element of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike; and (b) that the Latin Church has repeatedly attempted to suppress that practice "outside the ancient boundaries" of these Churches; i.e., in North America, Europe and Australia, where large numbers of Eastern Catholics actually live (we don't even get to elect our own bishops outside of those "ancient boundaries"--Rome appoints them for us, but, for some reason, our Patriarchs don't get to appoint the Latin bishops INSIDE our "ancient boundaries", which is both hypocritical and insulting).
As to the size of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, it was never large, having split off from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in 1724. The Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate, in turn, represented only the Chalcedonian rump of the Church of Antioch (the term "Melkite" means "King's Party", that is, those who continued to follow the policy of the Byzantine Empire), the majority of which, rejecting the Council of Chalcedon, became one of the Oriental Orthodox (previously known--falsely--as "monophysite") Churches. So the Melkites are a minority of a minority, but still part of a Christian community which has survived not merely sixteen centuries of Muslim oppression, but also the periodic hostility of the Church of Rome to its ancient practices and Tradition.
That said, Goldman sneers at the miniscule size of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, but is apparently ignorant of its prominence in recent Catholic history. We'll leave aside that in Catholic ecclesiology, all true Churches are equal in grace and dignity (as are all Patriarchs, for that matter). The Syrian Catholic Church is even smaller, with barely 50,000 members, but it is equal in grace and dignity with the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and even the Church of Rome; its Patriarch, like Patriarch Gregorios III, is a brother to the Patriarch of the West, who is, of course, Pope Benedict XVI.
The Melkites have been among the most theologically influential groups within the Catholic Church since the middle of the 20th century. They dominated the Second Vatican Council out of all proportion to their numbers. The so-called "Cairo School" of theology was in the forefront of pushing the concept of an ecclesiology of communion; of treating the Eastern Catholic "rites" as true Churches with a distinct ecclesial identity; of recognizing the Eastern Orthodox as Sister Churches; of using the vernacular in liturgy, and of returning Catholic theology to it sources in the Fathers. There's even an excellent book on the subject, "The Melkites at the Vatican Council II: Contribution of the Melkite Prelates to Vatican Council II" by Saba Shofany, which is well worth reading.
So, I guess you could say the Melkites consistently punch above their weight--not that size matters, mind you. One itinerant rabbi and a dozen rag-tag fisherman, tax collectors and what have you changed the world.
"The concerns of Greek Christians will fade before long, for in two or three generations there will be no Greek Christians in the Middle East, nor indeed Christians of any sort in the Middle East. Nor, for that matter, will there be many Greeks; with a fertility rate of only 1.37 children per female, one of the world’s lowest, Greece by mid-century will have a population two-thirds of which exceeds the age of sixty, and very little population at all by the end of the century. In a hundred years, modern Greek will be a dying language."
Stupid and irrelevant. First, the Melkites are not Greeks, so the Greek TFR has no bearing on anything. The Melkites, it turns out, are quite a fecund bunch, who have more than enough children to meet replacement needs, not only in the Middle East, but here in the states (mine is a very young parish constantly getting younger as its members pop out three, four or more babies with great consistency).
Yes, Middle Eastern Christians, including the Melkites, are leaving the Middle East in droves. They have been leaving for the better part of a century because, well, they can. They are smart, educated, entrepreneurial and quite capable of making a living wherever they go. And many see more opportunity outside their ancestral homelands. Then, of course, there is the constant threat (and occasional reality) of Muslim persecution. For a while, the Middle Eastern Christians tried to be "good Arabs", in the same way that German Jews tried to be "good Germans", but to no avail--even after conversion to Islam, they remain second class because they are not (despite their language) Arabs. I might add that the Israeli government has on more than a few occasions been extremely ham-fisted in its dealings with the indigenous Christian communities, sometimes considering them nothing more than "Arabs with a funny mosque". So they leave. But that has nothing to do with Greek fertility rates.
"It seems incongruous that the leader of a tiny ethnic group that lectures Rome on the merits of priestly marriage would draft the final statement of a Vatican Synod on the Middle East. "
If the Melkites are an ethnic group, then I guess I, a descendants of Romanian Jews, Neapolitans, Sicilians and Germans, qualifies as a member. Goldman seems to think that the Catholic Churches are nothing more than denominations or perhaps franchises of the Roman Catholic Church--again, a failure to appreciate Catholic ecclesiology. Furthermore, this was a special synod of the Catholic Churches of the Middle East, of which Rome (despite the existence of a titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem) is not one. The purpose was to have the Catholic Churches indigenous to the Middle East--not just the Melkite Greek Catholics, but the Syrian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, the Chaldean Catholics and the Armenian Catholics--express their perspectives and present them to the Holy See. Goldman apparently sees the Catholic Church as a monolithic, top-down organization in which the Pope says "Hop, frog!" and every one else says "How high?" Well, it doesn't work that way, and Goldman's article would have been more effective if he had left out the sneering and had simply focused on the fact of the Eastern Christian predicament in the Holy Land.
10.26.2010 | 8:12am
David Goldman says:
The position of the Catholic Church regarding the Jewish presence in Israel is subtle and certainly not unanimous. Cardinal Schoenborn, the co-editor of the Catechism, probably came closest to acknowledging an explicitly prophetic understanding of the State of Israel. See
http://www.israelcatholic.com/content/view/75/119/
and
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/05/001-zionism-for-christians-1
Archbishop Bustros, who is not quite a Catholic, has quite a different view. If we Jews are a bit muddled as to the Church's understanding, it is not entirely our fault.
I find this statement perplexing: "A falling birthrate and a rising Islam may provoke panic in some, but a faithful Christian will trust in the Father as Jesus taught. While God made a Covenant with the nation of Israel, His second covenant was with no nation at all but with all humans, and that is something no birthrate or other faith can vanquish." A falling birthrate, on the contrary, is proof positive of the absence of faith.
And it is certainly NOT true -- not in the sense that de Lubac understood it -- that God made a "second covenant" with "no nation at all." In de Lubac's understanding, God's covenant always is with Israel; Christians are made members of Israel by adoption, through water and the Holy Spirit. See the link above to my article on "Zionism for Christians" (behind the First Things paywall).
http://www.israelcatholic.com/content/view/75/119/
and
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/05/001-zionism-for-christians-1
Archbishop Bustros, who is not quite a Catholic, has quite a different view. If we Jews are a bit muddled as to the Church's understanding, it is not entirely our fault.
I find this statement perplexing: "A falling birthrate and a rising Islam may provoke panic in some, but a faithful Christian will trust in the Father as Jesus taught. While God made a Covenant with the nation of Israel, His second covenant was with no nation at all but with all humans, and that is something no birthrate or other faith can vanquish." A falling birthrate, on the contrary, is proof positive of the absence of faith.
And it is certainly NOT true -- not in the sense that de Lubac understood it -- that God made a "second covenant" with "no nation at all." In de Lubac's understanding, God's covenant always is with Israel; Christians are made members of Israel by adoption, through water and the Holy Spirit. See the link above to my article on "Zionism for Christians" (behind the First Things paywall).
10.26.2010 | 8:55am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Archbishop Bustros, who is not quite a Catholic, has quite a different view."
Now, that's chutzpah, David. On what basis do you make such a claim? Or does Catholic to you mean, simply, Roman Catholic, and all other varieties are just barely tolerated "ethnic groups".
As I said, you would have been far better off discussing the statement without attempting to evaluate or characterize the catholicity of those making it.
By the way, His Grace Archbishop Cyril (Eastern Christian bishops are identified by their given, not family names) is presently the Melkite Exarch in the United States (Archeparchy of Newton), and has recently been named as Archbishop of Beirut. I have met him on several occasions, and find his theology and pastoral manner exemplary, even if I do not agree with him on Middle Eastern policy.
Now, that's chutzpah, David. On what basis do you make such a claim? Or does Catholic to you mean, simply, Roman Catholic, and all other varieties are just barely tolerated "ethnic groups".
As I said, you would have been far better off discussing the statement without attempting to evaluate or characterize the catholicity of those making it.
By the way, His Grace Archbishop Cyril (Eastern Christian bishops are identified by their given, not family names) is presently the Melkite Exarch in the United States (Archeparchy of Newton), and has recently been named as Archbishop of Beirut. I have met him on several occasions, and find his theology and pastoral manner exemplary, even if I do not agree with him on Middle Eastern policy.
10.26.2010 | 9:46am
Ethan C. says:
Thanks for the clarification, Stuart. I think I can see what bothered you about the original post a lot more clearly now.
Well, as wide-ranging as this conversation has been, it's given me some food for thought about why European Christianity has gone the way it has in the past 50 years. I rather doubt Goldman's thesis that it's highly related to the Catholic response to World War II, but I haven't really formulated a competing theory.
Well, as wide-ranging as this conversation has been, it's given me some food for thought about why European Christianity has gone the way it has in the past 50 years. I rather doubt Goldman's thesis that it's highly related to the Catholic response to World War II, but I haven't really formulated a competing theory.
10.26.2010 | 11:21am
ctd says:
I am one more Melkite Catholic - with not, so far as I know, a drop of Arab blood - who finds Goldman's column offensive and riddled with ignorance about the Catholic Church. I don't agree with what Archbishop Cyril said, but it was hardly a statement from the church.
I particularly take offense to the characterization of the Melkite church as an "ethnic" and "dying" church. The particular community into which I was received had no members of Arab descent. About half were converts to Catholicism and about half were raised Latin rite Catholics. It certainly was not a picture of a dying ethnic church.
I particularly take offense to the characterization of the Melkite church as an "ethnic" and "dying" church. The particular community into which I was received had no members of Arab descent. About half were converts to Catholicism and about half were raised Latin rite Catholics. It certainly was not a picture of a dying ethnic church.
10.26.2010 | 11:35am
david Goldman says:
Mr. Koehl,
You tell me how to characterize a denomination that rejects some magisterial rules, e.g. priestly celibacy, and maintains a view of the Jews that was repudiated with Nostra Aetate. He is in communion with Rome, but in disagreement on some fundamentals. If you don't like "not quite a Catholic," perhaps you can suggest a more precise formulation.
You tell me how to characterize a denomination that rejects some magisterial rules, e.g. priestly celibacy, and maintains a view of the Jews that was repudiated with Nostra Aetate. He is in communion with Rome, but in disagreement on some fundamentals. If you don't like "not quite a Catholic," perhaps you can suggest a more precise formulation.
10.26.2010 | 11:53am
David Goldman says:
"Furthermore, this was a special synod of the Catholic Churches of the Middle East, of which Rome (despite the existence of a titular Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem) is not one. The purpose was to have the Catholic Churches indigenous to the Middle East--not just the Melkite Greek Catholics, but the Syrian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, the Chaldean Catholics and the Armenian Catholics--express their perspectives and present them to the Holy See."
Not so: the statement of the bishops was released as a Church document, not with magisterial standing, to be sure, but as the declaration of an important synod called by the pope. The bishops presented their views to the world, not to the Holy See, and in such a way (e.g., Bustros' remarks) as to open questions about the Church's understanding of the Jewish people. The fact that the pope failed to address these issues in his homily (as he had addressed them before a delegation of rabbis on May 13, 2009, for example) is disturbing.
Not so: the statement of the bishops was released as a Church document, not with magisterial standing, to be sure, but as the declaration of an important synod called by the pope. The bishops presented their views to the world, not to the Holy See, and in such a way (e.g., Bustros' remarks) as to open questions about the Church's understanding of the Jewish people. The fact that the pope failed to address these issues in his homily (as he had addressed them before a delegation of rabbis on May 13, 2009, for example) is disturbing.
10.26.2010 | 12:03pm
AvantiBev says:
If I were a jihadi, I would be thrilled that so many of you fine minds were distracted discussing how many Jewish and Catholic angels can dance on the head of a pin. Distracted enough to leave me to my dawa and my recruitment of fiery imams and fire-pants airplane bombers. From Minnesota to Mumbai , from Pakistan to the Philippines the world war of jihad rages on but don't let those shreiks and screams of the dying distract you geniuses from discussing eschatology.
Heck, all those ItaloAmerican ROMAN Catholic gal knows is that she is too smart for sharia, too Christian to convert and far too beautiful for a burqa. Back to your dancing angels now.
Heck, all those ItaloAmerican ROMAN Catholic gal knows is that she is too smart for sharia, too Christian to convert and far too beautiful for a burqa. Back to your dancing angels now.
10.26.2010 | 12:52pm
Eric Giunta says:
Dr Goldman:
You're making a fool out of yourself! Quit it!
1) Mandatory celibacy is a discipline (not a dogma) peculiar to the LATIN Catholic Church; the Eastern Catholics have ALWAYS ordained married men to the priesthood, and this with full approval by the Pope of Rome. The current controversy is that, since the 19th century, Papal decrees have more or less forbade Eastern Catholic Churches from ordaining married men outside their home countries. What the Eastern clergy have asked for is a rescinding of these rules, which arguably do violence to their inherited tradition. Bustros is not a dissenter from magisterial teaching.
2) As I have COPIOUSLY documented, Bustros does NOT dissent from Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetate does NOT endorse Zionism (as a religious ideology) and we Catholics do NOT recognize the Jews of today to be God's "chosen people" IN THE SAME SENSE as do Evangelical dispensationalists. Certain Jewish spokespersons who do not appreciate doctrinal subtleties have tried to force Zionist sentiments into the texts of our magisterial documents, but they do so disingenuously. Please, stop telling us what we believe as Catholics and be willing to adjust your understanding according to our own doctrinal sources!
Finally, Dr Goldman, you haveYET to produce ANY magisterial texts that affirm that the Jews have a DIVINELY ORDAINED right to the land of Israel. All you've provided in this regard is an article from the Washington Post (LOL!), that itself did not give ANY direct quotation from Cardinal Schonborn. Am I supposed to be shocked that the Washington Post shared your apparent ignorance of Catholic Christianity 101?
You're making a fool out of yourself! Quit it!
1) Mandatory celibacy is a discipline (not a dogma) peculiar to the LATIN Catholic Church; the Eastern Catholics have ALWAYS ordained married men to the priesthood, and this with full approval by the Pope of Rome. The current controversy is that, since the 19th century, Papal decrees have more or less forbade Eastern Catholic Churches from ordaining married men outside their home countries. What the Eastern clergy have asked for is a rescinding of these rules, which arguably do violence to their inherited tradition. Bustros is not a dissenter from magisterial teaching.
2) As I have COPIOUSLY documented, Bustros does NOT dissent from Nostra Aetate. Nostra Aetate does NOT endorse Zionism (as a religious ideology) and we Catholics do NOT recognize the Jews of today to be God's "chosen people" IN THE SAME SENSE as do Evangelical dispensationalists. Certain Jewish spokespersons who do not appreciate doctrinal subtleties have tried to force Zionist sentiments into the texts of our magisterial documents, but they do so disingenuously. Please, stop telling us what we believe as Catholics and be willing to adjust your understanding according to our own doctrinal sources!
Finally, Dr Goldman, you haveYET to produce ANY magisterial texts that affirm that the Jews have a DIVINELY ORDAINED right to the land of Israel. All you've provided in this regard is an article from the Washington Post (LOL!), that itself did not give ANY direct quotation from Cardinal Schonborn. Am I supposed to be shocked that the Washington Post shared your apparent ignorance of Catholic Christianity 101?
10.26.2010 | 12:57pm
Joseph C says:
I read Koehl replies and I can not but agree.
Mr Goldman,
“If you don't like "not quite a Catholic," perhaps you can suggest a more precise formulation.”
Mr Goldman the precise formulation is found in the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches as well as the Latin Churches (yes they each have their own code) “siu iuris” is the precise term. Perhaps a cursory reading of the Codes and an astute reading of the Church History in conjunction with an understanding of its spirituality can shed some light as to how and why the catholic (universal) church needs, and breath through “both sides of its lung”.
A side note to confirm Stuart’s affirmation that the Churches in the Middle-East have to rely on themselves, is found actually in your earlier reply to me “The worst thing the Reagan administration did, in my judgment, was to abandon Lebanon.” The Christians of the Middle East learned with painstaking time that rarely would the West rush to their aid. After all they control no oil rigs, nor precious metal mines. So yes, they are constantly reminded and on occasion when given a voice (i.e. Vatican II, Bishop Synods) in turn will remind the world as Maximos IV did during Vatican II that the one on the receiving end of the flogger is not the same as the one counting the hits (Arabic proverb).
In his book “The History of the Armenian Genocide” Vahakn Dadrian makes the point clear when he speaks of the massacre of the Greek Orthodox by the Turks and how Russia felt a sense of kinship with the Greek and threatened to invade the Ottomans from the West, while the East of Europe was deliberating its admission into the “European Nations” based on human rights violations (sounds familiar?). Then when Ottoman officers in Beirut killed the 15-20 Maronites officials, France issued a warning which forced the Ottomans Sultan to condemn to death the Ottoman officers involved. Yet when interests began to fade, and the bayonets was turned internally in Turkey on its Armenian citizens the world remained silence (with the exception of few protesters).
So yes Mr Goldman, the Eastern Christian have tendency not to forget their history, and attempt at learning from it (at least the wise one amongst them). More recently, when the Christians of Iraq have to suffer at the hands of extremists, no Western power is rushing to their aids, or the Coptic persecution in Egypt… and so on. So cut them some slack in attempting at maneuvering into a hostile territory where the Israeli Jews look at them as enemy and the Muslim Arab as traitors.
Mr Goldman,
“If you don't like "not quite a Catholic," perhaps you can suggest a more precise formulation.”
Mr Goldman the precise formulation is found in the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches as well as the Latin Churches (yes they each have their own code) “siu iuris” is the precise term. Perhaps a cursory reading of the Codes and an astute reading of the Church History in conjunction with an understanding of its spirituality can shed some light as to how and why the catholic (universal) church needs, and breath through “both sides of its lung”.
A side note to confirm Stuart’s affirmation that the Churches in the Middle-East have to rely on themselves, is found actually in your earlier reply to me “The worst thing the Reagan administration did, in my judgment, was to abandon Lebanon.” The Christians of the Middle East learned with painstaking time that rarely would the West rush to their aid. After all they control no oil rigs, nor precious metal mines. So yes, they are constantly reminded and on occasion when given a voice (i.e. Vatican II, Bishop Synods) in turn will remind the world as Maximos IV did during Vatican II that the one on the receiving end of the flogger is not the same as the one counting the hits (Arabic proverb).
In his book “The History of the Armenian Genocide” Vahakn Dadrian makes the point clear when he speaks of the massacre of the Greek Orthodox by the Turks and how Russia felt a sense of kinship with the Greek and threatened to invade the Ottomans from the West, while the East of Europe was deliberating its admission into the “European Nations” based on human rights violations (sounds familiar?). Then when Ottoman officers in Beirut killed the 15-20 Maronites officials, France issued a warning which forced the Ottomans Sultan to condemn to death the Ottoman officers involved. Yet when interests began to fade, and the bayonets was turned internally in Turkey on its Armenian citizens the world remained silence (with the exception of few protesters).
So yes Mr Goldman, the Eastern Christian have tendency not to forget their history, and attempt at learning from it (at least the wise one amongst them). More recently, when the Christians of Iraq have to suffer at the hands of extremists, no Western power is rushing to their aids, or the Coptic persecution in Egypt… and so on. So cut them some slack in attempting at maneuvering into a hostile territory where the Israeli Jews look at them as enemy and the Muslim Arab as traitors.
10.26.2010 | 1:29pm
Maria V . says:
Thank you to Ahem - for the great privilege of a little persecution on behalf of The Name and all it involves ...which inturn gave the occasion to trip into the joy of recalling who my Mama is ...who yours is ...and how that is the very best type of 'tripping' that The Church wish on all ...
10.26.2010 | 1:53pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"You tell me how to characterize a denomination that rejects some magisterial rules, e.g. priestly celibacy, and maintains a view of the Jews that was repudiated with Nostra Aetate. He is in communion with Rome, but in disagreement on some fundamentals. If you don't like "not quite a Catholic," perhaps you can suggest a more precise formulation."
How about "entirely Catholic"? The term "denomination", by the way, can never be applied to true Churches, but only to what the Vatican habitually calls the "ecclesial communities" of the Protestants. If you are going to wade in Catholic waters, learn how to swim like a Catholic, please.
As to why the Melkites (and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Romanian Greek Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Syrian Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, and the remainder of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are fully Catholic, despite having married priests, despite using leavened bread, despite having significantly different ways of expressing themselves theologically and spiritually, I refer you to the following documents:
1. Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches: Affirms that the Eastern Catholic Churches are independent Churches, each of which must recover the fullness of its authentic Tradition.
2. Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II's 1995 pastoral letter that encourages Roman Catholics (i.e., Catholics of the Latin Church) to learn more about the unique patrimony of the Eastern Churches, of which the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be the exemplars. It also makes good reading for non-Catholics who are utterly ignorant of the Eastern Churches.
3. The Instructions for Implementing the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches (1996): Provides directions for the restoration of the liturgical and spiritual patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in accordance with the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches promulgated in 1990.
4. The Balamand Declaration of the Joint International Orthodox Catholic Ecumenical Commission, which explains the history of "uniatism" in the Eastern Catholic Churches, why it is not a suitable model for future efforts at unity, and why the Eastern Catholics must become more faithful to their own Tradition.
5. A History of the Melkite Patriarchate (3 volumes) by Cyril Korolevsky, after reading which, you may have some dim glimmering of a clue regarding who the Melkites are, and why they matter.
6. I have already mentioned he Melkites at the Vatican Council II: Contribution of the Melkite Prelates to Vatican Council II" by Saba Shofany. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
To sum up, David: I was not born a Greek Catholic. I was not even born a Christian. I was born a Jew, and chose in the fullness of my years to become a Greek Catholic because I believe what the Greek Catholic Churches teach is true, and because the manner in which they express that truth speaks to my soul. My being a Melkite has not interfered with my support for Israel, nor am I unwilling to speak out when I believe our bishops are wrong on a matter in which prudential judgment is required. But you go well beyond that to denigrate the Greek Catholic Churches per se, insisting they are not really Catholic, but some pathetic ethnic "denomination", and you condemn my bishop as "not really Catholic". Since I stand by my bishop, you are in effect saying I am not a Catholic. I get quite enough of that crap, thank you, from certain types of Roman Catholics, who seem to believe, as you do, that the Latin Church is the only Church.
I tell you what I tell them: Get over it.
How about "entirely Catholic"? The term "denomination", by the way, can never be applied to true Churches, but only to what the Vatican habitually calls the "ecclesial communities" of the Protestants. If you are going to wade in Catholic waters, learn how to swim like a Catholic, please.
As to why the Melkites (and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Romanian Greek Catholics, the Armenian Catholics, the Coptic Catholics, the Syrian Catholics, the Maronite Catholics, and the remainder of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches are fully Catholic, despite having married priests, despite using leavened bread, despite having significantly different ways of expressing themselves theologically and spiritually, I refer you to the following documents:
1. Orientalium ecclesiarum, the Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches: Affirms that the Eastern Catholic Churches are independent Churches, each of which must recover the fullness of its authentic Tradition.
2. Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II's 1995 pastoral letter that encourages Roman Catholics (i.e., Catholics of the Latin Church) to learn more about the unique patrimony of the Eastern Churches, of which the Eastern Catholics are supposed to be the exemplars. It also makes good reading for non-Catholics who are utterly ignorant of the Eastern Churches.
3. The Instructions for Implementing the Liturgical Provisions of the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches (1996): Provides directions for the restoration of the liturgical and spiritual patrimony of the Eastern Catholic Churches, in accordance with the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches promulgated in 1990.
4. The Balamand Declaration of the Joint International Orthodox Catholic Ecumenical Commission, which explains the history of "uniatism" in the Eastern Catholic Churches, why it is not a suitable model for future efforts at unity, and why the Eastern Catholics must become more faithful to their own Tradition.
5. A History of the Melkite Patriarchate (3 volumes) by Cyril Korolevsky, after reading which, you may have some dim glimmering of a clue regarding who the Melkites are, and why they matter.
6. I have already mentioned he Melkites at the Vatican Council II: Contribution of the Melkite Prelates to Vatican Council II" by Saba Shofany. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
To sum up, David: I was not born a Greek Catholic. I was not even born a Christian. I was born a Jew, and chose in the fullness of my years to become a Greek Catholic because I believe what the Greek Catholic Churches teach is true, and because the manner in which they express that truth speaks to my soul. My being a Melkite has not interfered with my support for Israel, nor am I unwilling to speak out when I believe our bishops are wrong on a matter in which prudential judgment is required. But you go well beyond that to denigrate the Greek Catholic Churches per se, insisting they are not really Catholic, but some pathetic ethnic "denomination", and you condemn my bishop as "not really Catholic". Since I stand by my bishop, you are in effect saying I am not a Catholic. I get quite enough of that crap, thank you, from certain types of Roman Catholics, who seem to believe, as you do, that the Latin Church is the only Church.
I tell you what I tell them: Get over it.
10.26.2010 | 1:58pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Eric Giunta writes:
"The current controversy is that, since the 19th century, Papal decrees have more or less forbade Eastern Catholic Churches from ordaining married men outside their home countries. What the Eastern clergy have asked for is a rescinding of these rules, which arguably do violence to their inherited tradition. Bustros is not a dissenter from magisterial teaching."
I thank Eric for his support, and note that he is absolutely correct. I will only add that since the early 1990s, most Eastern Catholic Churches in the new worlds have begun ordaining married men without reference to the Holy See, and the Holy See, for its part, has chosen not to make an issue of it. The Holy See at the beginning of the 20th century, at the behest of Latin bishops in the United States, suppressed the institution of married priesthood here, with the result of some 250,000 Greek Catholics crossed into the Orthodox Church (creating the basis for what is today the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)). At the same time, since the Second Vatican Council, the Holy See has also directed the Greek Catholics to restore the fullness of their Tradition, which includes married priests. Faced with two contradictory Vatican directives, the bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches have chosen to follow the later, broader and more significant one.
"The current controversy is that, since the 19th century, Papal decrees have more or less forbade Eastern Catholic Churches from ordaining married men outside their home countries. What the Eastern clergy have asked for is a rescinding of these rules, which arguably do violence to their inherited tradition. Bustros is not a dissenter from magisterial teaching."
I thank Eric for his support, and note that he is absolutely correct. I will only add that since the early 1990s, most Eastern Catholic Churches in the new worlds have begun ordaining married men without reference to the Holy See, and the Holy See, for its part, has chosen not to make an issue of it. The Holy See at the beginning of the 20th century, at the behest of Latin bishops in the United States, suppressed the institution of married priesthood here, with the result of some 250,000 Greek Catholics crossed into the Orthodox Church (creating the basis for what is today the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)). At the same time, since the Second Vatican Council, the Holy See has also directed the Greek Catholics to restore the fullness of their Tradition, which includes married priests. Faced with two contradictory Vatican directives, the bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches have chosen to follow the later, broader and more significant one.
10.26.2010 | 2:01pm
Mike Walsh, MM says:
Excellent post. And thanks for being patient with the more outre of the combox zombies.
You left out one other reason why so many ME Christians despise Israel: Envy. As dhimmis, it must be terribly galling to them --the knowledge that the Jews have stood up to the Muslims time and again, and remain free and proud in a land they can call their own.
You left out one other reason why so many ME Christians despise Israel: Envy. As dhimmis, it must be terribly galling to them --the knowledge that the Jews have stood up to the Muslims time and again, and remain free and proud in a land they can call their own.
10.26.2010 | 2:18pm
Michael says:
David,
A falling birthrate can signify many things, including a lack of faith. In the Christian tradition, which has always prized celibacy, however, the decision not to have children can also be seen as a great act of faith.
My larger point is that Christians don’t or shouldn’t have an attachment to land or nation. It seems that much of your interest in birthrate concerns the ability of a nation to protect itself from the incursions of other nations. That logic makes perfect sense if you’re trying to build a nation but not if you’re a Christian participating in the creation of the city of God.
To a Christian observing the teachings of Jesus on state violence, the establishment of Israel was bound to unleash the cycles of violence now witnessed every day. At the same time, the Holocaust testifies to the evil that happens when Christians embrace state violence. It is heartening that the last half century has seen many Christians now accept Jews as their brothers. It is a crime and a betrayal of Jesus Himself that this half century of relative Christian-Jewish amity was preceded by two millennia of Christians using state violence to defame, dispossess, and murder Jews.
A falling birthrate can signify many things, including a lack of faith. In the Christian tradition, which has always prized celibacy, however, the decision not to have children can also be seen as a great act of faith.
My larger point is that Christians don’t or shouldn’t have an attachment to land or nation. It seems that much of your interest in birthrate concerns the ability of a nation to protect itself from the incursions of other nations. That logic makes perfect sense if you’re trying to build a nation but not if you’re a Christian participating in the creation of the city of God.
To a Christian observing the teachings of Jesus on state violence, the establishment of Israel was bound to unleash the cycles of violence now witnessed every day. At the same time, the Holocaust testifies to the evil that happens when Christians embrace state violence. It is heartening that the last half century has seen many Christians now accept Jews as their brothers. It is a crime and a betrayal of Jesus Himself that this half century of relative Christian-Jewish amity was preceded by two millennia of Christians using state violence to defame, dispossess, and murder Jews.
10.26.2010 | 2:18pm
J.J. Hayes says:
Patrick:
So acting like the other guy is the standard we all should use?
Eric:
Aren't you illustrating my point? I only ask you to consider that this kind of passion often arises from an insecurity about the truth of the matter. Who cares if anyone butts their noses into internal affairs of anybody? It takes our anger passion and sensitivity to every other word to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing?
So acting like the other guy is the standard we all should use?
Eric:
Aren't you illustrating my point? I only ask you to consider that this kind of passion often arises from an insecurity about the truth of the matter. Who cares if anyone butts their noses into internal affairs of anybody? It takes our anger passion and sensitivity to every other word to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing?
10.26.2010 | 2:19pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Goldman errs again:
"You tell me how to characterize a denomination that rejects some magisterial rules, e.g. priestly celibacy, and maintains a view of the Jews that was repudiated with Nostra Aetate."
I am very much a Latin Rite Catholic and very much a believer in the value of priestly celibacy, but it is clear that the Latin Rite norm of priestly celibacy is not binding on the Melkite Church. The Melkites are as much Catholics as any Western Catholic and some would say at a greater cost. "Swamped" in a sea of Islam and "swamped" in the Eastern Christian World by both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental "Orthodox," Eastern Catholics bear witness to the Universality of the Church in a unique way. I heartily recommend that the Eastern Catholics adopt the Western practice of Diocesan Priestly celibacy, but their decision not to do so does not make them any the less a part of the Catholic Church in Communion with Rome.
"You tell me how to characterize a denomination that rejects some magisterial rules, e.g. priestly celibacy, and maintains a view of the Jews that was repudiated with Nostra Aetate."
I am very much a Latin Rite Catholic and very much a believer in the value of priestly celibacy, but it is clear that the Latin Rite norm of priestly celibacy is not binding on the Melkite Church. The Melkites are as much Catholics as any Western Catholic and some would say at a greater cost. "Swamped" in a sea of Islam and "swamped" in the Eastern Christian World by both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental "Orthodox," Eastern Catholics bear witness to the Universality of the Church in a unique way. I heartily recommend that the Eastern Catholics adopt the Western practice of Diocesan Priestly celibacy, but their decision not to do so does not make them any the less a part of the Catholic Church in Communion with Rome.
10.26.2010 | 2:44pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Patrick Sarsfield writes:
"I heartily recommend that the Eastern Catholics adopt the Western practice of Diocesan Priestly celibacy, but their decision not to do so does not make them any the less a part of the Catholic Church in Communion with Rome."
I appreciate the sentiment, though I think you would object if I made the opposite recommendation to you. As it is, due to the ordination of increasing numbers of married Episcopalian clergy, there are presently more married Latin priests in the U.S. than there are married Greek Catholic priests. John Ireland is rolling in his grave.
"I heartily recommend that the Eastern Catholics adopt the Western practice of Diocesan Priestly celibacy, but their decision not to do so does not make them any the less a part of the Catholic Church in Communion with Rome."
I appreciate the sentiment, though I think you would object if I made the opposite recommendation to you. As it is, due to the ordination of increasing numbers of married Episcopalian clergy, there are presently more married Latin priests in the U.S. than there are married Greek Catholic priests. John Ireland is rolling in his grave.
10.26.2010 | 2:58pm
Gil Costello says:
Eric Giunta – When I read your contributions here I get a sense of your far more than average understanding of the legalisms of the faith, far more than what I possess, yet I do not sense any of the mysteries that are the life of the Church’s dogmatic constitution. And your legalistic certitude on supercessionism seems to be your centripetal focus here.
I look at dogmas this way: They can be a source of surface light that have in their legalistic sense a short radiating distance, never fully lighting the path ahead into the darkness. The legalistic impulse is to cling to every dogmatic construct in an effort to remain close to the source of light. And the problem here is that the great light is the Father, and Jesus is the way to the Father. The danger with dogmas is that they can become the only light we access. Yet, if we explore their mysterious depth, then we begin to live in the light, not cling to it. They become organic in the life of Christ.
Your hostility in defending dogmas is apparent when you write “What we're sick and tired of is the Jewish Lobby butting their noses into the internal affairs of the Catholic religion…” Who is this “we’re”? Is not the Catholic Church big enough to listen to criticisms, whether they have substance or not? And isn’t it often the case that critiques without substance often reveal harm done that the Church might want to help heal, even if it has not been the cause?
My meditation on the Christian’s relationship to the Jews the last 20 years always has me return to Romans 11 where no answers are given, but the mystery, if one lets go, can begin to be experienced, not understood. For example, Romans 11:17-21: 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
And then there is 25-32: 25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Perhaps the two words, “covenant” and “irrevocable”, in the above reading is a good place to begin meditating on the mystery. This mystery in our relationship to our Jewish brothers and sisters leads us away from judgment and into love, and especially in love to get to know each other more intimately through the Holy Spirit. This particular mission more than anything is what I admired most in Richard John Neuhaus.
I look at dogmas this way: They can be a source of surface light that have in their legalistic sense a short radiating distance, never fully lighting the path ahead into the darkness. The legalistic impulse is to cling to every dogmatic construct in an effort to remain close to the source of light. And the problem here is that the great light is the Father, and Jesus is the way to the Father. The danger with dogmas is that they can become the only light we access. Yet, if we explore their mysterious depth, then we begin to live in the light, not cling to it. They become organic in the life of Christ.
Your hostility in defending dogmas is apparent when you write “What we're sick and tired of is the Jewish Lobby butting their noses into the internal affairs of the Catholic religion…” Who is this “we’re”? Is not the Catholic Church big enough to listen to criticisms, whether they have substance or not? And isn’t it often the case that critiques without substance often reveal harm done that the Church might want to help heal, even if it has not been the cause?
My meditation on the Christian’s relationship to the Jews the last 20 years always has me return to Romans 11 where no answers are given, but the mystery, if one lets go, can begin to be experienced, not understood. For example, Romans 11:17-21: 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
And then there is 25-32: 25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Perhaps the two words, “covenant” and “irrevocable”, in the above reading is a good place to begin meditating on the mystery. This mystery in our relationship to our Jewish brothers and sisters leads us away from judgment and into love, and especially in love to get to know each other more intimately through the Holy Spirit. This particular mission more than anything is what I admired most in Richard John Neuhaus.
10.26.2010 | 3:02pm
David Goldman says:
Michael,
There is a difference between priestly celibacy and familial infertility. The Church has warred against contraception and abortion precisely because they interfere with natural human reproduction. If Christian families aren't having children, the comparison to priestly celibacy is very strange indeed.
As for Christian teachings on "state violence:" The standard is Augustinian just war theory. The Jews have been the worst victims of state violence (followed of course by the Armenians) in the modern era. No-one objects to the Armenians having a state. To argue that Jews don't need a state as a matter of self-protection seems perverse given the circumstances. And that is not the view of the Church. These rather outlandish statements tend to confirm that Arab Christians don't want the State of Israel to exist at all. That's not the pope's view; he just visited the State of Israel.
There is a difference between priestly celibacy and familial infertility. The Church has warred against contraception and abortion precisely because they interfere with natural human reproduction. If Christian families aren't having children, the comparison to priestly celibacy is very strange indeed.
As for Christian teachings on "state violence:" The standard is Augustinian just war theory. The Jews have been the worst victims of state violence (followed of course by the Armenians) in the modern era. No-one objects to the Armenians having a state. To argue that Jews don't need a state as a matter of self-protection seems perverse given the circumstances. And that is not the view of the Church. These rather outlandish statements tend to confirm that Arab Christians don't want the State of Israel to exist at all. That's not the pope's view; he just visited the State of Israel.
10.26.2010 | 4:18pm
Eric Giunta says:
Gil:
The point is that these demands the Jewish establishment makes on Catholicism reek of asinine bigotry: they assume that orthodox Christianity is inherently anti-semitic, and so we're no longer allowed to dramatize Christ's Passion, no longer to ascribe ANY blame to ANY historical Jewish personage whatsoever in the execution of the Son of God, we MAY NOT witness our Catholic Christian faith to our Jewish neighbors and invite them to a free conversion to the true religion, and we MAY NOT affirm that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfilled the Torah and made its ceremonial prescriptions superfluous.
The Jewish establishment *isn't* just criticizing these points theologically, which they've every moral right to do. Rather they make public protest whenever we, Catholic Christians, do nothing more than articulate our BASIC religious convictions, and accuse us of being anti-semitic whenever we do so. This is dishonest and bigoted on their part, and Catholic leaders need to start calling them out on it.
The point is that these demands the Jewish establishment makes on Catholicism reek of asinine bigotry: they assume that orthodox Christianity is inherently anti-semitic, and so we're no longer allowed to dramatize Christ's Passion, no longer to ascribe ANY blame to ANY historical Jewish personage whatsoever in the execution of the Son of God, we MAY NOT witness our Catholic Christian faith to our Jewish neighbors and invite them to a free conversion to the true religion, and we MAY NOT affirm that Jesus is the Messiah who fulfilled the Torah and made its ceremonial prescriptions superfluous.
The Jewish establishment *isn't* just criticizing these points theologically, which they've every moral right to do. Rather they make public protest whenever we, Catholic Christians, do nothing more than articulate our BASIC religious convictions, and accuse us of being anti-semitic whenever we do so. This is dishonest and bigoted on their part, and Catholic leaders need to start calling them out on it.
10.26.2010 | 4:35pm
Michael says:
David,
Yes, indeed, there is a difference between priestly celibacy and family infertility. But there are also celibate couples and couples who select various sizes for their families. I’ve never bought the official Roman Catholic idea that “natural family planning” differs somehow from so-called “artificial” contraception. Every family chooses to limit its size in some way.
You’ll get no defense of St. Augustine’s just war theory from me. He was wrong. No war is just from a fully Christian perspective. St. Augustine accepted the idea because, like so many Christians, he fell in love with state power. He even turned it against fellow Christians, the Donatists.
I don’t object to Armenians, Jews, or any other people having a state. I do object to any people using violence to found or maintain a state, and that violence is seen every day in Israel. When Jews revolted against Rome in 70, Christians left the city rather than fight. Following Christ, they too didn’t believe that violence was acceptable in founding or re-establishing a state.
Nazi Germany was an evil, modern/pagan state that committed the worst crime of the twentieth century in the Holocaust. But they learned to hate and revile Jews from centuries of Catholic anti-Semitic teaching and pogroms that go all the way back to St. John Chrysostom. For those two millennia of evil, Catholics haven’t even begun to repent, but contrition does not require Christians to support war or violence on behalf of Israel.
Yes, indeed, there is a difference between priestly celibacy and family infertility. But there are also celibate couples and couples who select various sizes for their families. I’ve never bought the official Roman Catholic idea that “natural family planning” differs somehow from so-called “artificial” contraception. Every family chooses to limit its size in some way.
You’ll get no defense of St. Augustine’s just war theory from me. He was wrong. No war is just from a fully Christian perspective. St. Augustine accepted the idea because, like so many Christians, he fell in love with state power. He even turned it against fellow Christians, the Donatists.
I don’t object to Armenians, Jews, or any other people having a state. I do object to any people using violence to found or maintain a state, and that violence is seen every day in Israel. When Jews revolted against Rome in 70, Christians left the city rather than fight. Following Christ, they too didn’t believe that violence was acceptable in founding or re-establishing a state.
Nazi Germany was an evil, modern/pagan state that committed the worst crime of the twentieth century in the Holocaust. But they learned to hate and revile Jews from centuries of Catholic anti-Semitic teaching and pogroms that go all the way back to St. John Chrysostom. For those two millennia of evil, Catholics haven’t even begun to repent, but contrition does not require Christians to support war or violence on behalf of Israel.
10.26.2010 | 5:26pm
David Goldman says:
Michael,
A slim majority of Israelis descend from Jews who were expelled by violence from countries where, in some cases, they lived a thousand years before the arrival of the Arabs -- nearly 700,000 in fact, roughly the same number as Arabs who left or were expelled from Israel in 1948. The 1948 war occurred because the Arab side refused to accept peaceful partition, although the Jews ready to accept it. Violence has been forced upon Israel from the outset, and to draw a moral equivalence between those who defend their lives and those who seek to kill them seems twisted in the extreme. In fact, Israel has been making unilateral territorial concessions for some time--unfortunately. Israel's experience with unilateral withdrawal (Lebanon and Gaza) has been dreadful; unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, as I wrote, would put rocketeers on hilltops a dozen miles from Tel Aviv.
A slim majority of Israelis descend from Jews who were expelled by violence from countries where, in some cases, they lived a thousand years before the arrival of the Arabs -- nearly 700,000 in fact, roughly the same number as Arabs who left or were expelled from Israel in 1948. The 1948 war occurred because the Arab side refused to accept peaceful partition, although the Jews ready to accept it. Violence has been forced upon Israel from the outset, and to draw a moral equivalence between those who defend their lives and those who seek to kill them seems twisted in the extreme. In fact, Israel has been making unilateral territorial concessions for some time--unfortunately. Israel's experience with unilateral withdrawal (Lebanon and Gaza) has been dreadful; unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, as I wrote, would put rocketeers on hilltops a dozen miles from Tel Aviv.
10.26.2010 | 7:02pm
John Cummins says:
David Goldman & Ellen S/Shnidman,
Ellen, please expand here upon your view of the moral and spiritual substance of the Arab ethnic group, as opposed to the Arabic-speaking people. Mr. Goldman, feel free to add your views.
This really is the issue, after all: that Islam is an Arab product, embodying the Arab tribal ethos which includes bloodthirstiness, superstition, covetousness, laziness, usurpation, idle tyranny. (After all, doesn't Rashi say that Ishmael may have actually tried to sexually molest Isaac, and for this reason Sarah demanded he and his mother be exiled? As you know, other sages didn't agree with him.)
An aspect of the Israeli/Palestinian, or Israel/Arab, or Israel/Muslim conflict that you have never engaged is: What is the spiritual function of the Arabs and Islam in the fate of Israel? Maimonides might be a compelling starting point.
Thank you for your efforts.
Ellen, please expand here upon your view of the moral and spiritual substance of the Arab ethnic group, as opposed to the Arabic-speaking people. Mr. Goldman, feel free to add your views.
This really is the issue, after all: that Islam is an Arab product, embodying the Arab tribal ethos which includes bloodthirstiness, superstition, covetousness, laziness, usurpation, idle tyranny. (After all, doesn't Rashi say that Ishmael may have actually tried to sexually molest Isaac, and for this reason Sarah demanded he and his mother be exiled? As you know, other sages didn't agree with him.)
An aspect of the Israeli/Palestinian, or Israel/Arab, or Israel/Muslim conflict that you have never engaged is: What is the spiritual function of the Arabs and Islam in the fate of Israel? Maimonides might be a compelling starting point.
Thank you for your efforts.
10.26.2010 | 10:01pm
Maria V. says:
The still prevalent views of Jewish people collectively or as nation being held accountable for their role in The Passion seems sad and perturbing !
Would not such a view lead to denying the miracle of forgiveness from the heart , to any and all of our own ancestors too who God alone knows could have had roles in one way or other too ...words of our Lord to St.Paul too - 'why are you persecuting Me ' in the context of his role in trying to destroy Christianity ...thus our own on going role in same from any such ill treatment of our brother ..
Our Jewish Lord ...our Jewish Mother ....our Jewish Apostles ...may the debt of our gratitude erase and speak loudly to any hurts caused by the focus brought on by the accuser whose role is what our Lord came to undo !
Shalom !
Would not such a view lead to denying the miracle of forgiveness from the heart , to any and all of our own ancestors too who God alone knows could have had roles in one way or other too ...words of our Lord to St.Paul too - 'why are you persecuting Me ' in the context of his role in trying to destroy Christianity ...thus our own on going role in same from any such ill treatment of our brother ..
Our Jewish Lord ...our Jewish Mother ....our Jewish Apostles ...may the debt of our gratitude erase and speak loudly to any hurts caused by the focus brought on by the accuser whose role is what our Lord came to undo !
Shalom !
10.27.2010 | 6:18am
Stuart Koehl says:
"The still prevalent views of Jewish people collectively or as nation being held accountable for their role in The Passion seems sad and perturbing !"
I am unaware of any major Christian group that does this. If anything, the tendency since the end of World War II has run in the opposite direction--to effectively eliminate any Jewish participation in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, despite the historical evidence. Thus, we are told repeated, Jesus was crucified by the Romans--true, in the narrowest of technical senses, but highly misleading. Jesus was arrested by the Temple soldiers (more of a paramilitary police unit) and tried before the Sanhedrin. Not having the authority to condemn a man to death, they brought Jesus before the Praefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus, who, after some hemming and hawing (entirely consistent with the portrayal of Pilate in non-biblical sources), ordered Jesus condemned. Jewish sources, including both Flavius Josephus and the Talmud, all concur with the Gospels on this point. And, from a theological perspective, it is absolutely imperative that the Son of Man be rejected and condemned by his own.
So, the inescapable conclusion, from all the evidence, is the Jews--or rather the Jewish leadership--ordered the arrest and trial of Jesus, and then arranged for his judicial murder. None of this implicates the entire Jewish nation. None of this implicates present day Jews. Those who take Christian theology seriously recognize the broader truth: WE--all of us--are the Jews, and every day we scourge and crucify Christ through our sins. And every day, Christ implores, "Father, forgive them"--and perpetually redeems us from bondage to sin and death through his own death and glorious resurrection.
At various times, members of the Church, out of ignorance, persecuted the Jewish people for fulfilling the role divinely ordained for them by God in the beginning. But far more often, the Church protected the Jews (even if it did not fully embrace them). There is an entirely different thread of Christian philosemitism that has long gone unnoticed: large numbers of individual Christians, even in the patristic era, liked and admired Jews and continued to emulate them. This is the real reason behind the broadsides of Chrysostom and other fathers, whose homilies are not anti-semitic so much as they are "anti-Judaizing". In the the fourth and fifth centuries, Christianity was relatively weak, and Judaism was not the pietistic, non-proselytizing religion we know today. It was an active competitor to the Church, and many of the majority pagan population, as well as significant numbers of Christians, were attracted to it. Bishops naturally condemned this movement, using the rhetorically elaborate hyperbole popular at the time. It is significant that none of these broadsides "against the Jews" actually condemn Judaizing as heresy--it is not what the Judaizers believed, but what they did (celebrating Jewish feasts, emulating Jewish ritual purity laws) that was seen as the problem.
So, overall, and writing as a Jew (my conversion would not save me from the Nazis, any more than it did Edith Stein), I have no problem with the Church's present stance on Judaism and the Jews, nor do I find it objectionable that, in the services of Great Week, the actions of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin should be depicted according to Scripture. I become far more upset by attempts to impose a sort of political correctness upon the Church at the expense of mangling its traditional liturgy and whitewashing the truth.
I become even more annoyed when demands for further whitewash, together with interminable apologies, comes from the ranks of secular Jews whose association with the Synagogue and the Law of Moses is cultural at best (on more than one occasion, I have described modern reformed Judaism as "like Unitarianism, but without the theological rigor). It's significant that, when I was baptized, the most vociferous objections in my family came from those who are secular Jews. On the other hand, I have found nothing but support from my relatives who are Orthodox Jews, and more significantly, I have never heard of any Orthodox Jewish authorities asking that Christians cease believing what they have always believed in order to assuage Jewish sensibilities. On such calls for additional apologies from the non-observant, Father Neuhaus pithily observed, "Never again, and never enough"; i.e., in the minds of some, nothing the Church can do, aside from disbanding, will atone for the offenses the Church has supposedly committed against the Jews.
I am unaware of any major Christian group that does this. If anything, the tendency since the end of World War II has run in the opposite direction--to effectively eliminate any Jewish participation in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, despite the historical evidence. Thus, we are told repeated, Jesus was crucified by the Romans--true, in the narrowest of technical senses, but highly misleading. Jesus was arrested by the Temple soldiers (more of a paramilitary police unit) and tried before the Sanhedrin. Not having the authority to condemn a man to death, they brought Jesus before the Praefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus, who, after some hemming and hawing (entirely consistent with the portrayal of Pilate in non-biblical sources), ordered Jesus condemned. Jewish sources, including both Flavius Josephus and the Talmud, all concur with the Gospels on this point. And, from a theological perspective, it is absolutely imperative that the Son of Man be rejected and condemned by his own.
So, the inescapable conclusion, from all the evidence, is the Jews--or rather the Jewish leadership--ordered the arrest and trial of Jesus, and then arranged for his judicial murder. None of this implicates the entire Jewish nation. None of this implicates present day Jews. Those who take Christian theology seriously recognize the broader truth: WE--all of us--are the Jews, and every day we scourge and crucify Christ through our sins. And every day, Christ implores, "Father, forgive them"--and perpetually redeems us from bondage to sin and death through his own death and glorious resurrection.
At various times, members of the Church, out of ignorance, persecuted the Jewish people for fulfilling the role divinely ordained for them by God in the beginning. But far more often, the Church protected the Jews (even if it did not fully embrace them). There is an entirely different thread of Christian philosemitism that has long gone unnoticed: large numbers of individual Christians, even in the patristic era, liked and admired Jews and continued to emulate them. This is the real reason behind the broadsides of Chrysostom and other fathers, whose homilies are not anti-semitic so much as they are "anti-Judaizing". In the the fourth and fifth centuries, Christianity was relatively weak, and Judaism was not the pietistic, non-proselytizing religion we know today. It was an active competitor to the Church, and many of the majority pagan population, as well as significant numbers of Christians, were attracted to it. Bishops naturally condemned this movement, using the rhetorically elaborate hyperbole popular at the time. It is significant that none of these broadsides "against the Jews" actually condemn Judaizing as heresy--it is not what the Judaizers believed, but what they did (celebrating Jewish feasts, emulating Jewish ritual purity laws) that was seen as the problem.
So, overall, and writing as a Jew (my conversion would not save me from the Nazis, any more than it did Edith Stein), I have no problem with the Church's present stance on Judaism and the Jews, nor do I find it objectionable that, in the services of Great Week, the actions of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin should be depicted according to Scripture. I become far more upset by attempts to impose a sort of political correctness upon the Church at the expense of mangling its traditional liturgy and whitewashing the truth.
I become even more annoyed when demands for further whitewash, together with interminable apologies, comes from the ranks of secular Jews whose association with the Synagogue and the Law of Moses is cultural at best (on more than one occasion, I have described modern reformed Judaism as "like Unitarianism, but without the theological rigor). It's significant that, when I was baptized, the most vociferous objections in my family came from those who are secular Jews. On the other hand, I have found nothing but support from my relatives who are Orthodox Jews, and more significantly, I have never heard of any Orthodox Jewish authorities asking that Christians cease believing what they have always believed in order to assuage Jewish sensibilities. On such calls for additional apologies from the non-observant, Father Neuhaus pithily observed, "Never again, and never enough"; i.e., in the minds of some, nothing the Church can do, aside from disbanding, will atone for the offenses the Church has supposedly committed against the Jews.
10.27.2010 | 6:56am
Thomas R says:
I'm trying to think of a respectable way to say this Mr. Goldman, but I think we Catholics might know our religion better than you do. You may have some prejudice against Eastern-rite Catholics, and in fairness I understand that as going by studies many of them are Anti-Semitic, but it doesn't change that they are Catholics. The statement of one Melkite leader on Jews does not change that.
And to go further if the future of Christianity in the Mideast, or even Israel, is only Hebrew-Christians than I would see that as a tragedy. Even from an anthropological perspective I would. These rites have lived in this land for many centuries, in cases like the Maronites since almost ancient times, and losing them would be sad to me as a Catholic. As a Jewish person I could see how maybe it's not sad, but I think a Jewish man insulting them is likely not the way to make them more sympathetic to the Jewish people.
And to go further if the future of Christianity in the Mideast, or even Israel, is only Hebrew-Christians than I would see that as a tragedy. Even from an anthropological perspective I would. These rites have lived in this land for many centuries, in cases like the Maronites since almost ancient times, and losing them would be sad to me as a Catholic. As a Jewish person I could see how maybe it's not sad, but I think a Jewish man insulting them is likely not the way to make them more sympathetic to the Jewish people.
10.27.2010 | 8:50am
David Goldman says:
Thomas R,
The tragedy is upon is; the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The pope's premise that Middle Eastern Christians can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival in the region is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Melkites; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally, for just the reasons Walter Cardinal Kasper cited for the weakness of the Church during World War II: Christians will destroy themselves by cutting off their Jewish roots.
The Jew-hatred of many attendees at the synod was appalling and--to my mind--a failsafe indicator of spiritual bankruptcy.
And I didn't cite some of the worst utterances. See Sandro Magister's report:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345192?eng=y
The tragedy is upon is; the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The pope's premise that Middle Eastern Christians can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival in the region is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Melkites; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally, for just the reasons Walter Cardinal Kasper cited for the weakness of the Church during World War II: Christians will destroy themselves by cutting off their Jewish roots.
The Jew-hatred of many attendees at the synod was appalling and--to my mind--a failsafe indicator of spiritual bankruptcy.
And I didn't cite some of the worst utterances. See Sandro Magister's report:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345192?eng=y
10.27.2010 | 8:52am
Stuart Koehl says:
"These rites have lived in this land for many centuries, in cases like the Maronites since almost ancient times, and losing them would be sad to me as a Catholic. As a Jewish person I could see how maybe it's not sad, but I think a Jewish man insulting them is likely not the way to make them more sympathetic to the Jewish people."
On a technical note, not "rites" but Churches. One belongs to a Church, which follows a particular rite.
All of the ancient Churches of the Middle East can trace their origins to the Church of Jerusalem, the Mother of All Churches, founded by the Apostles upon the day of Pentecost. From there, they spread outward to Alexandria, Antioch and Edessa, and from those Churches one can trace the Mother Churches of all the Catholic Churches of the Middle East, not merely the Maronites. As I noted, the Melkites are descended from the Chalcedonian Church of Antioch, the Syrian Catholics from the Jacobite Church of Antioch, the Coptic Catholics from the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholics from the Assyrian Church of the East (which may be the most ancient of all, in terms of continuous existence).
The Maronites are sui generis, having once been considered "Melkites" themselves: they supported the Emperor Heraclius and the monothelite doctrine, later condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. By that time, the Maronites, a West Syrian Church centered on the Monastery of St. Maroun, had been isolated by the Muslim conquests and eventually settled into fortified communities in the Lebanese mountains. There they remained in splendid isolation, hostile both to the Muslims and other indigenous Christians (their monothelitism was rejected both by the Chalcedonians and the Jacobites alike), until the arrival of the Frankish crusaders in the 11th century.
Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery and myth, because much of their written history was destroyed (by themselves) over the century, in an effort to bind themselves ever more closely to the Church of Rome. But from what few traces remain, it would appear that the Maronite community was divided on the subject of communion with Rome, that monothelitism was not abandoned without a struggle, and that the integration of the Maronites into the Catholic Church took some decades and not a little bit of violence, too.
The Maronites managed, better than most other Christian communities, to remain independent of Muslim domination, mainly due to geography and their ability to make strong alliances with Western protectors. This probably accounts today for the difference in outlook between the Maronites and other Middle Eastern Christians--though, mind you, they have no great love of the Israelis after Israel pulled the rug out from under them by withdrawing from Lebanon.
On a technical note, not "rites" but Churches. One belongs to a Church, which follows a particular rite.
All of the ancient Churches of the Middle East can trace their origins to the Church of Jerusalem, the Mother of All Churches, founded by the Apostles upon the day of Pentecost. From there, they spread outward to Alexandria, Antioch and Edessa, and from those Churches one can trace the Mother Churches of all the Catholic Churches of the Middle East, not merely the Maronites. As I noted, the Melkites are descended from the Chalcedonian Church of Antioch, the Syrian Catholics from the Jacobite Church of Antioch, the Coptic Catholics from the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Chaldean Catholics from the Assyrian Church of the East (which may be the most ancient of all, in terms of continuous existence).
The Maronites are sui generis, having once been considered "Melkites" themselves: they supported the Emperor Heraclius and the monothelite doctrine, later condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. By that time, the Maronites, a West Syrian Church centered on the Monastery of St. Maroun, had been isolated by the Muslim conquests and eventually settled into fortified communities in the Lebanese mountains. There they remained in splendid isolation, hostile both to the Muslims and other indigenous Christians (their monothelitism was rejected both by the Chalcedonians and the Jacobites alike), until the arrival of the Frankish crusaders in the 11th century.
Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery and myth, because much of their written history was destroyed (by themselves) over the century, in an effort to bind themselves ever more closely to the Church of Rome. But from what few traces remain, it would appear that the Maronite community was divided on the subject of communion with Rome, that monothelitism was not abandoned without a struggle, and that the integration of the Maronites into the Catholic Church took some decades and not a little bit of violence, too.
The Maronites managed, better than most other Christian communities, to remain independent of Muslim domination, mainly due to geography and their ability to make strong alliances with Western protectors. This probably accounts today for the difference in outlook between the Maronites and other Middle Eastern Christians--though, mind you, they have no great love of the Israelis after Israel pulled the rug out from under them by withdrawing from Lebanon.
10.27.2010 | 8:56am
David Goldman says:
I'll amend the above statement slightly: there is a very slim chance for Christian survival in the Middle East (outside of Israel, that is)--and that is to ruin Iran. The Reagan administration's disastrous decision to abandon Lebanon in the 1980s undermined the Christian communities there.
During the cited 2009 at the Vatican, I suggested to my interlocutor that he remind the Holy Father of the First Morocco Crisis of 1905; being German, the pope should appreciate this. A minor diplomatic incident between Germany and France might have provoked the outbreak of war nine years before Sarajevo. Count Alfred von Schlieffen, the German chief of staff, begged Wilhelm II to attack France; England had not yet signed the Entente and Russia was busy with a revolution. France would have been alone and Germany would have crushed it in weeks, as it did in 1870. Had Germany acted preemptively, there would have been no Great War, and, presumably, no Hitler.
Now, if Iran is ruined, there will plenty of dead, including Christians and Jews; thousands of Israeli civilians probably will die in rocket attacks. Nonetheless, it's worth it.
During the cited 2009 at the Vatican, I suggested to my interlocutor that he remind the Holy Father of the First Morocco Crisis of 1905; being German, the pope should appreciate this. A minor diplomatic incident between Germany and France might have provoked the outbreak of war nine years before Sarajevo. Count Alfred von Schlieffen, the German chief of staff, begged Wilhelm II to attack France; England had not yet signed the Entente and Russia was busy with a revolution. France would have been alone and Germany would have crushed it in weeks, as it did in 1870. Had Germany acted preemptively, there would have been no Great War, and, presumably, no Hitler.
Now, if Iran is ruined, there will plenty of dead, including Christians and Jews; thousands of Israeli civilians probably will die in rocket attacks. Nonetheless, it's worth it.
10.27.2010 | 9:42am
jpa says:
Michael,
You have a very limited and obviously malinformed understanding of Church teaching regarding just-war, St. Augustine's own situation regarding war and empire, and St. John Chrysostom's supposed anti-semitism. Question: have you ever read a complete tractate by either of the aforementioned Fathers? Have you read the De Civitate in its entirety. I am betting the answer is "no", for your comments show a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of what would be found therein.
You have a very limited and obviously malinformed understanding of Church teaching regarding just-war, St. Augustine's own situation regarding war and empire, and St. John Chrysostom's supposed anti-semitism. Question: have you ever read a complete tractate by either of the aforementioned Fathers? Have you read the De Civitate in its entirety. I am betting the answer is "no", for your comments show a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of what would be found therein.
10.27.2010 | 10:42am
Stuart Koehl says:
"The Jew-hatred of many attendees at the synod was appalling and--to my mind--a failsafe indicator of spiritual bankruptcy."
Gee, I wonder if all the people in my parish know that the despised Jew is among them?
Be that as it may, one of the insidious aspects of the Muslim policy of dhimmitude is the playing off of one group of dhimmis against another. With regard to Christians, the Muslims would shift their favor from one group to another, apparently at whim, with the effect of keeping all of them off balance, and constantly seeking favor of their overlords--often by piling onto the group currently out of favor. Typically, however, the various Catholic Churches were persecuted more than either the Byzantine Orthodox or the Jacobites because the Catholics were considered under the control of an external power (the Papacy), and because the Papacy was considered a hostile, secular, Western power.
But, in the hierarchy of dhimmitude, there was always one constant: the Jews were at the bottom of the heap, and in line with the ancient practice of "kissing up and kicking down", the other Dhimmis were always prepared to show their fidelity to the Muslims by picking on the Jews. This is an old habit that is hard to break.
Gee, I wonder if all the people in my parish know that the despised Jew is among them?
Be that as it may, one of the insidious aspects of the Muslim policy of dhimmitude is the playing off of one group of dhimmis against another. With regard to Christians, the Muslims would shift their favor from one group to another, apparently at whim, with the effect of keeping all of them off balance, and constantly seeking favor of their overlords--often by piling onto the group currently out of favor. Typically, however, the various Catholic Churches were persecuted more than either the Byzantine Orthodox or the Jacobites because the Catholics were considered under the control of an external power (the Papacy), and because the Papacy was considered a hostile, secular, Western power.
But, in the hierarchy of dhimmitude, there was always one constant: the Jews were at the bottom of the heap, and in line with the ancient practice of "kissing up and kicking down", the other Dhimmis were always prepared to show their fidelity to the Muslims by picking on the Jews. This is an old habit that is hard to break.
10.27.2010 | 11:05am
John Cummins says:
Mr. Goldman, what is the spiritual function of the Arabs and Islam in the fate of Israel?
10.27.2010 | 12:26pm
Joseph C says:
Koehl,
Your presentation of the Maronites is a bit shaky. Everything else you say about the Eastern Churches is to the point, and you express it eloquently and precisely.
Allow me if I may:
1. The monothelitism heresy was not adopted by the Maronite Church. Out of ignorance it was adopted by some monks and the heresy was soon dropped after.
2. “Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery and myth, because much of their written history was destroyed (by themselves) over the century, in an effort to bind themselves ever more closely to the Church of Rome.”
Stuart, the Maronites history is full of persecution from the mountains in Syria/Turkey down to Lebanon, they are a Church on the run. Hence most of their writing could not be salvaged every time they had to move. They did not enjoy a lot of protection from the kings and emperors. It was not to show allegiance to Rome.
The Maronites always seem to have to defend themselves against these two points: the Monothelistic heresy and allegiance to Rome. The Maronite College in Rome was founded in the 1600, and as a result part of their heritage was destroyed by Latinization (a double edge sword).
As for their relationship with the crusaders; Oh that was another issue… After the defeat of the crusaders, a wave of massacre of the Maronite Christians started in Lebanon, and perhaps some may argue continues until today. The root of the “traitors” finger pointing made by their Muslim compatriots’ is specifically the landing hand the Maronite offered the crusaders on the coastlines of Lebanon.
I would recommend for further reading the rather large 3 volumes in French Histoire de L’eglise Maronite by Pierre Dib, or the English abridged translation History of the Maronite Church trans. Seely Beggiani or History of the Maronites by Boutros Dau.
Your presentation of the Maronites is a bit shaky. Everything else you say about the Eastern Churches is to the point, and you express it eloquently and precisely.
Allow me if I may:
1. The monothelitism heresy was not adopted by the Maronite Church. Out of ignorance it was adopted by some monks and the heresy was soon dropped after.
2. “Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery and myth, because much of their written history was destroyed (by themselves) over the century, in an effort to bind themselves ever more closely to the Church of Rome.”
Stuart, the Maronites history is full of persecution from the mountains in Syria/Turkey down to Lebanon, they are a Church on the run. Hence most of their writing could not be salvaged every time they had to move. They did not enjoy a lot of protection from the kings and emperors. It was not to show allegiance to Rome.
The Maronites always seem to have to defend themselves against these two points: the Monothelistic heresy and allegiance to Rome. The Maronite College in Rome was founded in the 1600, and as a result part of their heritage was destroyed by Latinization (a double edge sword).
As for their relationship with the crusaders; Oh that was another issue… After the defeat of the crusaders, a wave of massacre of the Maronite Christians started in Lebanon, and perhaps some may argue continues until today. The root of the “traitors” finger pointing made by their Muslim compatriots’ is specifically the landing hand the Maronite offered the crusaders on the coastlines of Lebanon.
I would recommend for further reading the rather large 3 volumes in French Histoire de L’eglise Maronite by Pierre Dib, or the English abridged translation History of the Maronite Church trans. Seely Beggiani or History of the Maronites by Boutros Dau.
10.27.2010 | 12:31pm
Gil Costello says:
Eric Giunta - my experience has been different. I, in fact, have been able to speak more openly about my Christian faith with Jews than with Christians, and I am convinced that a large part of that has to do with, as Goldman pointed out, Christians severing from the root of their faith.
I have been ostracized from the three parishes I have belonged to over the past 20 years by conservatives and liberals (who have subsumed their faith into political paradigms) simply by speaking the truths of my faith. Even my close Christian friends during this time have chosen not to associate with me, not because they don't have genuine love for me, but because my faith is either an embarrassment to them or it too painfully calls attention to their lukewarmness or their persistence in sin that they have found a way to justify. Concerning all this, I remain with Christ on his Cross when he says, “Forgive them - they know not what they do."
Did Jesus lie on the Cross when he said - concerning the Jews, the Romans and the many others, including those visiting the land and participating as spectators - "Forgive them - they know not what they do."? The reason Christians can judge actions but not persons or peoples is precisely because we cannot know the complexity of what brought a person to the place where he/she participates in an evil action.
Since my return to the Church 25 years ago, only two persons have consistently engaged with me, both Jews, and both not disturbed by my chosen entrenchment in the life of Christ. One of those friends I have a deep concern for, for he has been obsessing on the mystery of the evil called the Holocaust for about 20 years. In fact, when I was alone at Christmas I would go to his house and we would have a marathon watching films on the Holocaust. He more than anyone has made visible for me how deep the horror goes in the persecution of the Jews, and my fear for him is that because he persists in going deeper into the mystery, it might consume him in sorrow. I believe the reason my two Jewish friends are the only two who have abided with me is because I abide with them, the three of us understanding that at the heart of every matter is a great mystery, the mystery of good and evil.
I know a rabbi who is holier than any priest I have ever known, excepting one, and I would love to hear sermons from him every week.
What I have learned is that, truly, when we Christians sever from the root, the Jewish People, we will no longer be Christians, and that's why I, too, like Kierkegaard, look out over Christendom and see no Christianity. I see Christianity in the exceptions, in those few, the remnant, that has chosen to be saints. Yes, we are now with the Jews in being remnants. It’s in that great Dylan line, "You see, you're just like me - I hope you're satisfied."
I have been ostracized from the three parishes I have belonged to over the past 20 years by conservatives and liberals (who have subsumed their faith into political paradigms) simply by speaking the truths of my faith. Even my close Christian friends during this time have chosen not to associate with me, not because they don't have genuine love for me, but because my faith is either an embarrassment to them or it too painfully calls attention to their lukewarmness or their persistence in sin that they have found a way to justify. Concerning all this, I remain with Christ on his Cross when he says, “Forgive them - they know not what they do."
Did Jesus lie on the Cross when he said - concerning the Jews, the Romans and the many others, including those visiting the land and participating as spectators - "Forgive them - they know not what they do."? The reason Christians can judge actions but not persons or peoples is precisely because we cannot know the complexity of what brought a person to the place where he/she participates in an evil action.
Since my return to the Church 25 years ago, only two persons have consistently engaged with me, both Jews, and both not disturbed by my chosen entrenchment in the life of Christ. One of those friends I have a deep concern for, for he has been obsessing on the mystery of the evil called the Holocaust for about 20 years. In fact, when I was alone at Christmas I would go to his house and we would have a marathon watching films on the Holocaust. He more than anyone has made visible for me how deep the horror goes in the persecution of the Jews, and my fear for him is that because he persists in going deeper into the mystery, it might consume him in sorrow. I believe the reason my two Jewish friends are the only two who have abided with me is because I abide with them, the three of us understanding that at the heart of every matter is a great mystery, the mystery of good and evil.
I know a rabbi who is holier than any priest I have ever known, excepting one, and I would love to hear sermons from him every week.
What I have learned is that, truly, when we Christians sever from the root, the Jewish People, we will no longer be Christians, and that's why I, too, like Kierkegaard, look out over Christendom and see no Christianity. I see Christianity in the exceptions, in those few, the remnant, that has chosen to be saints. Yes, we are now with the Jews in being remnants. It’s in that great Dylan line, "You see, you're just like me - I hope you're satisfied."
10.27.2010 | 12:31pm
Chris Balducci says:
When it comes to war, no participants have clean hands. The Christians in the Lebanese Civil War commited atrocities just as the Muslims did. Once the Chrisitians decided to go to war, that commandment about "loving your neighbor as yourself" went out the window. If the Lebanese Christians had truly lived Christian lives instead of acting as warring clans, perhaps Lebanon would be a better place now. Should any of the Christian hierarchy there apologize? Yes, I am holding the Christians to a higher standard. We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard.
10.27.2010 | 1:59pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Goldman writes this entirely obnoxious statement about Christians in the Middle East:
"The tragedy is upon is; the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The pope's premise that Middle Eastern Christians can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival in the region is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Melkites; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally"
As Mr. Goldman's article admits, though, there are still as many christians in the Middle East (12 Million) as there were jews in the World at the End of WWII (not to mention many millions more now living outside the Mid-East who would return if a more tolerant environment existed). How offensive (not to mention shortsighted) it would have been for someone to have written in 1945: "the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The premise that the survivors can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival of Judaism is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Jews; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally...." Clearly, this sentiment is unacceptable. Mr. Goldman really needs to apologize for it.
"The tragedy is upon is; the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The pope's premise that Middle Eastern Christians can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival in the region is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Melkites; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally"
As Mr. Goldman's article admits, though, there are still as many christians in the Middle East (12 Million) as there were jews in the World at the End of WWII (not to mention many millions more now living outside the Mid-East who would return if a more tolerant environment existed). How offensive (not to mention shortsighted) it would have been for someone to have written in 1945: "the last act has been played; we are in the epilogue. It cannot be reversed. The premise that the survivors can provide the "leaven" for a cultural revival of Judaism is wrong. I am not "insulting" the Jews; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally...." Clearly, this sentiment is unacceptable. Mr. Goldman really needs to apologize for it.
10.27.2010 | 2:23pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Joseph C wrote:
"Your presentation of the Maronites is a bit shaky."
Joseph,
As I said, Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery, and the Maronites themselves do little to abate the fog, having created their own origins mythology that contains a number of disputable (if not outright incorrect) statements, such as "the Maronite Church never broke its communion with the Church of Rome".
What I wrote reflects the latest scholarship on the Maronites, who true story is much more interesting than what is commonly understood. Also, the Maronites preserved plenty of documents (it's what Christian communities, especially monastic ones, do, compulsively), most of which we only know from paraphrases and epitomes because they were destroyed between the 11th and 13th century--by the Maronites themselves.
"Your presentation of the Maronites is a bit shaky."
Joseph,
As I said, Maronite origins are shrouded in mystery, and the Maronites themselves do little to abate the fog, having created their own origins mythology that contains a number of disputable (if not outright incorrect) statements, such as "the Maronite Church never broke its communion with the Church of Rome".
What I wrote reflects the latest scholarship on the Maronites, who true story is much more interesting than what is commonly understood. Also, the Maronites preserved plenty of documents (it's what Christian communities, especially monastic ones, do, compulsively), most of which we only know from paraphrases and epitomes because they were destroyed between the 11th and 13th century--by the Maronites themselves.
10.27.2010 | 2:30pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I am not "insulting" the Jews; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally...."
A number of objective observers (including several Jews such Eliott Abrams and Norman Podhoretz, might say this is increasingly true of Jews outside of Israel, with the exception of elements of the Orthodox community. Look, for instance, and the vast majority of American Jews, who claim adherence to Reform Judaism: theologically bankrupt, demographically in decline, politically obtuse and seemingly bent on self-destruction. Half of all Reform Jews marry outside the faith; they average just 1.5 children each, half of whom will cease to practice Judaism altogether; and the compulsively vote for a political party that is antithetical to their interests and the survival of the State of Israel. My answer to Podhoretz's rhetorical question, "Why Are Jews Still Liberal?" was quite succinct: death wish.
A number of objective observers (including several Jews such Eliott Abrams and Norman Podhoretz, might say this is increasingly true of Jews outside of Israel, with the exception of elements of the Orthodox community. Look, for instance, and the vast majority of American Jews, who claim adherence to Reform Judaism: theologically bankrupt, demographically in decline, politically obtuse and seemingly bent on self-destruction. Half of all Reform Jews marry outside the faith; they average just 1.5 children each, half of whom will cease to practice Judaism altogether; and the compulsively vote for a political party that is antithetical to their interests and the survival of the State of Israel. My answer to Podhoretz's rhetorical question, "Why Are Jews Still Liberal?" was quite succinct: death wish.
10.27.2010 | 2:51pm
Michael says:
David,
Occupied by a foreign power, Britain, Palestinian Arabs were told that they would be given independence but only if they were willing to give much of their land to people, many of whom had only recently immigrated to the land. In 1920, Jews made up only 11% of the population, but by 1948, immigrants had swelled the number to 33%. That’s a tremendous increase.
Why should Palestinian Arabs simply give their land away to so many recent immigrants? Why should they accept a deal brokered by foreign powers while under foreign domination? Palestinian Arabs were right to be infuriated by such a proposal. They were absolutely wrong to express that anger through violence.
I don’t think I am drawing a “moral equivalence between those who defend their lives and those who seek to kill them.” I am saying that violence in self-defense is no better than any other form of violence. Violence begets violence.
I would add that in effect you are saying, “Don’t kill us just because we stole your land.” Both sides construe this fight as one of self-defense, but that is true of most wars.
JPA,
Why so hostile? I haven’t insulted anyone. If I’m wrong, explain why you think so. Tell me what I am missing. I’ll answer your questions nonetheless in hopes of a more decent response.
Yes, I have read a couple of St. John Chrysostom’s homilies in their entirety, and while they demonstrate some inspiration, they contain much more hatred. In a comment above, Stuart does a good job of explaining the context of St. John’s homilies, so I won’t repeat it here.
What I can add is that St. John’s preaching inspired a Christian mob to destroy a synagogue right there in Antioch where he preached. I’ve looked around for homilies against anti-Semitic violence, but I have found none by him. If you know of any, I’d be grateful.
No, I’ve read a good bit of “City of God” but not the entirety. I don’t think, however, that I’ve misrepresented St. Augustine’s theory of just war. Trying to constrict the use of war, he still believed that war was justified to protect the weak and innocent. He then recommended that the state use its power to help the Catholic Church persecute his fellow Christians, the Donatists. His image of Christ, the Good Shepherd, using a whip to keep the flock in order seems absolutely counter to what the gospels preach, which is the rejection of violence.
Occupied by a foreign power, Britain, Palestinian Arabs were told that they would be given independence but only if they were willing to give much of their land to people, many of whom had only recently immigrated to the land. In 1920, Jews made up only 11% of the population, but by 1948, immigrants had swelled the number to 33%. That’s a tremendous increase.
Why should Palestinian Arabs simply give their land away to so many recent immigrants? Why should they accept a deal brokered by foreign powers while under foreign domination? Palestinian Arabs were right to be infuriated by such a proposal. They were absolutely wrong to express that anger through violence.
I don’t think I am drawing a “moral equivalence between those who defend their lives and those who seek to kill them.” I am saying that violence in self-defense is no better than any other form of violence. Violence begets violence.
I would add that in effect you are saying, “Don’t kill us just because we stole your land.” Both sides construe this fight as one of self-defense, but that is true of most wars.
JPA,
Why so hostile? I haven’t insulted anyone. If I’m wrong, explain why you think so. Tell me what I am missing. I’ll answer your questions nonetheless in hopes of a more decent response.
Yes, I have read a couple of St. John Chrysostom’s homilies in their entirety, and while they demonstrate some inspiration, they contain much more hatred. In a comment above, Stuart does a good job of explaining the context of St. John’s homilies, so I won’t repeat it here.
What I can add is that St. John’s preaching inspired a Christian mob to destroy a synagogue right there in Antioch where he preached. I’ve looked around for homilies against anti-Semitic violence, but I have found none by him. If you know of any, I’d be grateful.
No, I’ve read a good bit of “City of God” but not the entirety. I don’t think, however, that I’ve misrepresented St. Augustine’s theory of just war. Trying to constrict the use of war, he still believed that war was justified to protect the weak and innocent. He then recommended that the state use its power to help the Catholic Church persecute his fellow Christians, the Donatists. His image of Christ, the Good Shepherd, using a whip to keep the flock in order seems absolutely counter to what the gospels preach, which is the rejection of violence.
10.27.2010 | 3:42pm
Gil Costello says:
patricksarsfield - your optimism concerning Christians in the Middle East providing leaven for a cultural revival is somewhat naive, and Goldman's assessment certainly comes closer to reality, and therefore no apology necessary. Also, Christianity is in a similar predicament throughout Europe and even in America where secularism hasn't totally conquered the culture, but has gained incredible ground. Also, to say "The premise that the survivors can provide the 'leaven' for a cultural revival of [faith-based] Judaism is wrong. I am not ‘insulting’ the [religiously inspired] Jews; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally...." In other words, faith-based Jews, as is now happening with faith-based Christians, are a "lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally..." because our influence in all these dimensions is dying a daily death.
When Pope Benedict XVI claims the presence of Christians in the Middle East [as in Europe and America] can provide leaven for a cultural revival, in light of the words Goldman quotes from the Holy Father's earlier estimation of the state of Christianity in the world, "We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church", this leaven might come not from a popular, culturally sanctioned, Church, but "... in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."
When Pope Benedict XVI claims the presence of Christians in the Middle East [as in Europe and America] can provide leaven for a cultural revival, in light of the words Goldman quotes from the Holy Father's earlier estimation of the state of Christianity in the world, "We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church", this leaven might come not from a popular, culturally sanctioned, Church, but "... in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."
10.27.2010 | 3:48pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Michael wrote:
"Why should Palestinian Arabs simply give their land away to so many recent immigrants? "
Michael ignores that, according to Ottoman census data and a variety of Western gazeteers, in the latter half of the 19th century, Palestine was largely depopulated, and what people were there were largely Jewish (European Jews for centuries had been retiring to the Holy Land to be buried in the land of their forefathers), Armenian and Syro-Phoenician. Most of the Arabs of the region were Bedouin nomads.
It was not until the Zionists arrived in the last decades of the 19th century, and began clearing and improving the land, that an Arab migration actually began. When the Zionists arrived, they mainly acquired unoccupied or uncultivated land owned by Turkish absentee landlords. To be brutally honest, it wasn't until the Jews made the desert bloom and began growing oranges the size of cantaloupes that the Arabs even gave a rats patoot about Palestine. Most of the Arabs resident in Palestine in 1948 had been there no longer than the Jews. Moreover, under the partition agreement, the Jews did not get the choice terrain, but places like the Negev. If only the Arabs had accepted the partition, they not only would have had a homeland, but all the prime real estate, too.
Not that the Egyptians or the Jordanians were going to let the Palestinians enjoy it. As in fact happened, the land allocated to the Palestinians would have been occupied and annexed by the neighboring Arab states.
Funny, how nobody talked about a Palestinian homeland when Jordan owned the West Bank and Egyptian owned the Gaza Strip.
As an historical note, there were no Arabs in what is called Palestine prior to the Muslim conquest. The indigenous population was composed of Greeks, Syrians, and Jews, and even after the conquest, Arabs comprised a distinct minority, a narrow ruling caste until the 14th century, when, in an early example of ethnic cleansing, the Turkish rulers replaced the politically unreliable Christian peasantry with Yemeni fellahin (something confirmed by genetic testing). In other words, the Arabs of Palestine are no more the indigenous population than the descendants of the Pilgrims represent the original population of Massachusetts. As far as maintaining a continuous claim to the land, pride of place must belong to the Jews, who never left, and then to the Christians, who had established a thriving, multi-ethnic civilization by the fourth century.
Regarding Chrysostom, I suggest you look at his "Against the Jews" in the context of the religious situation at the time, and not anachronistically read post-Holocaust meanings into it. As I said, I am a Jew, I have read Chrysostom, and became a Greek Catholic nonetheless.
On Augustine and the Donatists, the latter gave as good as they got, and Augustine only called in the Roman army after the Donatists had engaged in a series of riots in which a number of churches were burned and Catholic (i.e., non-Donatist) clergy and laymen were killed and injured. Again, try to look at these matters within the context of the fourth and fifth centuries, and not like a 21st century secularist, please.
"Why should Palestinian Arabs simply give their land away to so many recent immigrants? "
Michael ignores that, according to Ottoman census data and a variety of Western gazeteers, in the latter half of the 19th century, Palestine was largely depopulated, and what people were there were largely Jewish (European Jews for centuries had been retiring to the Holy Land to be buried in the land of their forefathers), Armenian and Syro-Phoenician. Most of the Arabs of the region were Bedouin nomads.
It was not until the Zionists arrived in the last decades of the 19th century, and began clearing and improving the land, that an Arab migration actually began. When the Zionists arrived, they mainly acquired unoccupied or uncultivated land owned by Turkish absentee landlords. To be brutally honest, it wasn't until the Jews made the desert bloom and began growing oranges the size of cantaloupes that the Arabs even gave a rats patoot about Palestine. Most of the Arabs resident in Palestine in 1948 had been there no longer than the Jews. Moreover, under the partition agreement, the Jews did not get the choice terrain, but places like the Negev. If only the Arabs had accepted the partition, they not only would have had a homeland, but all the prime real estate, too.
Not that the Egyptians or the Jordanians were going to let the Palestinians enjoy it. As in fact happened, the land allocated to the Palestinians would have been occupied and annexed by the neighboring Arab states.
Funny, how nobody talked about a Palestinian homeland when Jordan owned the West Bank and Egyptian owned the Gaza Strip.
As an historical note, there were no Arabs in what is called Palestine prior to the Muslim conquest. The indigenous population was composed of Greeks, Syrians, and Jews, and even after the conquest, Arabs comprised a distinct minority, a narrow ruling caste until the 14th century, when, in an early example of ethnic cleansing, the Turkish rulers replaced the politically unreliable Christian peasantry with Yemeni fellahin (something confirmed by genetic testing). In other words, the Arabs of Palestine are no more the indigenous population than the descendants of the Pilgrims represent the original population of Massachusetts. As far as maintaining a continuous claim to the land, pride of place must belong to the Jews, who never left, and then to the Christians, who had established a thriving, multi-ethnic civilization by the fourth century.
Regarding Chrysostom, I suggest you look at his "Against the Jews" in the context of the religious situation at the time, and not anachronistically read post-Holocaust meanings into it. As I said, I am a Jew, I have read Chrysostom, and became a Greek Catholic nonetheless.
On Augustine and the Donatists, the latter gave as good as they got, and Augustine only called in the Roman army after the Donatists had engaged in a series of riots in which a number of churches were burned and Catholic (i.e., non-Donatist) clergy and laymen were killed and injured. Again, try to look at these matters within the context of the fourth and fifth centuries, and not like a 21st century secularist, please.
10.27.2010 | 3:51pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I would recommend for further reading the rather large 3 volumes in French Histoire de L’eglise Maronite by Pierre Dib, or the English abridged translation History of the Maronite Church trans. Seely Beggiani or History of the Maronites by Boutros Dau."
I had the honor of meeting Chorbishop Seely at the Orientale Lumen Conference in Washington several years ago, and acted as altar server for him at the celebration of Vespers according to the restored Maronite rite. It was a very moving service, steeped in the commemoration of the martyrs.
I had the honor of meeting Chorbishop Seely at the Orientale Lumen Conference in Washington several years ago, and acted as altar server for him at the celebration of Vespers according to the restored Maronite rite. It was a very moving service, steeped in the commemoration of the martyrs.
10.27.2010 | 3:54pm
patricksarsfield says:
Chris Balducci writes this seemingly imperious judgment:
"If the Lebanese Christians had truly lived Christian lives instead of acting as warring clans, perhaps Lebanon would be a better place now. Should any of the Christian hierarchy there apologize? Yes, I am holding the Christians to a higher standard. We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard. "
But Chris is not holding him(her)self to a higher standard. Rather, he is holding other people to a standard he well might be setting without having experienced the horrors of ther Lebanese Civil War himself. Christ's commandment "judge not lest ye be judged" is a wise caution for all of us to bear in mind, but those who still cannot resist making judgments at least should bear in mind another wise saying: "walk a mile in the other person's shoes." So, unless Chris has walked a mile down the Beirut Green Line while "the natives were restless," his judgment may well be just the too glib judgment of an arm-chair observer.
"If the Lebanese Christians had truly lived Christian lives instead of acting as warring clans, perhaps Lebanon would be a better place now. Should any of the Christian hierarchy there apologize? Yes, I am holding the Christians to a higher standard. We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard. "
But Chris is not holding him(her)self to a higher standard. Rather, he is holding other people to a standard he well might be setting without having experienced the horrors of ther Lebanese Civil War himself. Christ's commandment "judge not lest ye be judged" is a wise caution for all of us to bear in mind, but those who still cannot resist making judgments at least should bear in mind another wise saying: "walk a mile in the other person's shoes." So, unless Chris has walked a mile down the Beirut Green Line while "the natives were restless," his judgment may well be just the too glib judgment of an arm-chair observer.
10.27.2010 | 4:20pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl,
"the Arabs of Palestine are no more the indigenous population than the descendants of the Pilgrims"
If that's the perspective from which you evaluate, then neither are the Jews. For instance, the Hebrew language being actually the language of the Canaanites. There is no "indigenous population"; the first inhabitants came there from Africa.
"the Arabs of Palestine are no more the indigenous population than the descendants of the Pilgrims"
If that's the perspective from which you evaluate, then neither are the Jews. For instance, the Hebrew language being actually the language of the Canaanites. There is no "indigenous population"; the first inhabitants came there from Africa.
10.27.2010 | 5:42pm
Michael says:
Stuart,
I’m getting my numbers from MidEast Web, a peace group that is committed to providing numbers that serve neither cause. They would dispute your claim that “Palestine was largely depopulated.” The economy certainly prospered with Jewish immigration and with British control. The question remains why the 58% Muslim majority in Palestine in 1945 should have accepted the dictates of foreign occupiers.
I have looked at St. John’s homilies in their context. He wanted Christians to stop attending synagogues. And he abused Jews in heinous terms. And he didn’t seem to mind when his bile resulted in violence, including the destruction of a synagogue. The vivid anti-Semitism of Sts. Ambrose and Cyril also condoned violence against Jews, violence that occurred right there in front of them and not sixteen or seventeen centuries later. It was St. Augustine who drew a line at violence against Jews. I don’t think any of these men would have condoned or supported the Final Solution, but the first three inspired violence against Jews. I can find no evidence that any of those three preached against the violence they inspired.
Yes, Donatists “gave as good as they got.” But I’m not looking at these matters either as a fifth-century Catholic or as a “21st century secularist.” I’m looking at them as a first-century Christian, and I’m saying that there’s no way that Christ, Peter, Paul, or James would have encouraged one set of Christians to call in the army to kill another set of Christians. St. Augustine was wrong in making this call, just as he was right in making clear that Jews should always have a place in Christendom.
I’m getting my numbers from MidEast Web, a peace group that is committed to providing numbers that serve neither cause. They would dispute your claim that “Palestine was largely depopulated.” The economy certainly prospered with Jewish immigration and with British control. The question remains why the 58% Muslim majority in Palestine in 1945 should have accepted the dictates of foreign occupiers.
I have looked at St. John’s homilies in their context. He wanted Christians to stop attending synagogues. And he abused Jews in heinous terms. And he didn’t seem to mind when his bile resulted in violence, including the destruction of a synagogue. The vivid anti-Semitism of Sts. Ambrose and Cyril also condoned violence against Jews, violence that occurred right there in front of them and not sixteen or seventeen centuries later. It was St. Augustine who drew a line at violence against Jews. I don’t think any of these men would have condoned or supported the Final Solution, but the first three inspired violence against Jews. I can find no evidence that any of those three preached against the violence they inspired.
Yes, Donatists “gave as good as they got.” But I’m not looking at these matters either as a fifth-century Catholic or as a “21st century secularist.” I’m looking at them as a first-century Christian, and I’m saying that there’s no way that Christ, Peter, Paul, or James would have encouraged one set of Christians to call in the army to kill another set of Christians. St. Augustine was wrong in making this call, just as he was right in making clear that Jews should always have a place in Christendom.
10.27.2010 | 6:29pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Don't be silly, John. The Hebrews came out of Canaan, and went back into it. And paleolithic prehistory has no bearing on the argument, one way or the other. In historical time, the people known as the Arabs entered Palestine only in the 7th century AD. The people known as the Hebrews, or Jews, on the other hand, have been there since the 12th century BC (according to the testimony of the Menerptah Stela). And they never left: the Assyrians did not take everybody out of Israel, nor did the Babylonians remove everybody from Judah. The Romans did not expel the Jews, either in AD 70 or in AD 135. The Jews were there when the Arabs rode out of the desert. The Jews were there when the Turks conquered the Arabs. The Jews were there when the Crusaders arrived, and still there when they left. Jews have been continuously on the land for close to 3500 years. And that's about as close to indigenous as one can get these days.
10.27.2010 | 7:06pm
Stuart Koehl says:
If you want to be ahistorical, Michael, that's your privilege. Don't ask me to go along with you. I consider it nothing more or less than empty moral preening.
10.27.2010 | 8:33pm
Thomas R says:
"I am not "insulting" the Melkites; I am arguing that they are a lost cause, politically, demographically, and now morally, for just the reasons Walter Cardinal Kasper cited for the weakness of the Church during World War II: Christians will destroy themselves by cutting off their Jewish roots. "
I'm trying to see how this is not insulting them and what I come up with is you are not intentionally insulting them. You are insulting them, certainly I feel, but in the way a nineteenth century white person might have unintentionally insulted a Cherokee or Cheyenne by saying "you're politically, demographically, and morally doomed to die." The person of that era would likely just think of it as an obvious statement going by the evidence they knew. That telling someone their doomed is not insulting, that someone could be that clueless, is hard to comprehend on one level but yeah I suppose it can happen.
I'm trying to see how this is not insulting them and what I come up with is you are not intentionally insulting them. You are insulting them, certainly I feel, but in the way a nineteenth century white person might have unintentionally insulted a Cherokee or Cheyenne by saying "you're politically, demographically, and morally doomed to die." The person of that era would likely just think of it as an obvious statement going by the evidence they knew. That telling someone their doomed is not insulting, that someone could be that clueless, is hard to comprehend on one level but yeah I suppose it can happen.
10.27.2010 | 8:45pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl, please don't presume to use the first name of someone you haven't met, especially while brusquely maintaining inaccuracies. By judging what "has no bearing" you are both going beyond the point to which you responded and obliging yourself, as the worshiper of a God of truth and justice, to reckon with paleolithic prehistory.
"Prehistory" would have done there, wouldn't it have? But you perhaps felt value and utility in the dismissive frisson added by "paleolithic", as much as that of "silly". To be honest, Mr. Koehl, at this point, your manner in discourse suggests a temperament occupied with pleasure and pride, raising the question of how tainted with egotism might be your vehement adherence to Eastern Christianity. A 20th century Lebanese novel characterizes the Maronites as treating Jesus as their tribal god. An brain engorged on incomplete picture of Eastern Christianity plus an infinite number of moving Eastern rite ceremonies won't soften a heart of stone.
Here, posted to you under Mr. Doino's article, and reposted here. The first sentence might be up for retraction.
------------------------------------------
Stuart Koehl, your contributions on the eastern churches and your zeal for the gospel are very, very much appreciated, and even heart-warming. However, here,
"the 'Arab-American' community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically 'Arab' "
The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab who is a Christian is not an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance.
Arabs-by-blood had lived, both as bedouin and as townies, in the Levant and eastwards from before Christ and most of them had become Christian before Islam. There were Arab-by-blood, not just ethnic, Arabic-speaking Christians almost from at least the fourth century. (Acts 2:11, on the other hand, seems to refer to Arab Jews.) Many Palestinian Arab Christians originated from what is now Yemen and the central Arabian peninsula like to say that they rhetorically that they were "always Christian", before they ever encountered Greek Orthodoxy. Ever heard of the Ghassanid kingdom, for instance? There are settled Christian bedouin tribes in Jordan whose forbears were converted by a Jerusalem bishop the beginning of the fifth century, a bishop of whom was a signatory at the council of Ephesus. Thirdly, in ways not presumed by western opinionators in 2010, families changed their religious identity in earlier centuries, such that an Lebanese Shi'ite family now was a Maronite family 200 years ago and vice versa.
Given that so many writers and readers at First Things have so much ego- and career-investment in declaiming and agitprop regarding Arabs-by-blood, their nefarious essence and hellish religion--the ill-effects of which non-Arab-by-blood Muslims may escape by virtue of being non-Arabs--it's no wonder that they have spent no effort on a definition of the ethnic Arab as distinct from the native Arabic speaker. For those of you here who really pretend to worship, obey and emulate Jesus Christ, and those of you non-Christians who pretend to do the equivalent, should you continue in your calumnies against Arabs-by-blood, God will certainly not be pleased with you, and the penalty will be first in your own characters and secondly in your spiritual witness. This is not an sentimental religious matter; it's a matter of logic and morality.
"Prehistory" would have done there, wouldn't it have? But you perhaps felt value and utility in the dismissive frisson added by "paleolithic", as much as that of "silly". To be honest, Mr. Koehl, at this point, your manner in discourse suggests a temperament occupied with pleasure and pride, raising the question of how tainted with egotism might be your vehement adherence to Eastern Christianity. A 20th century Lebanese novel characterizes the Maronites as treating Jesus as their tribal god. An brain engorged on incomplete picture of Eastern Christianity plus an infinite number of moving Eastern rite ceremonies won't soften a heart of stone.
Here, posted to you under Mr. Doino's article, and reposted here. The first sentence might be up for retraction.
------------------------------------------
Stuart Koehl, your contributions on the eastern churches and your zeal for the gospel are very, very much appreciated, and even heart-warming. However, here,
"the 'Arab-American' community in the United States (predominantly Christian, hence not really ethnically 'Arab' "
The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab who is a Christian is not an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance.
Arabs-by-blood had lived, both as bedouin and as townies, in the Levant and eastwards from before Christ and most of them had become Christian before Islam. There were Arab-by-blood, not just ethnic, Arabic-speaking Christians almost from at least the fourth century. (Acts 2:11, on the other hand, seems to refer to Arab Jews.) Many Palestinian Arab Christians originated from what is now Yemen and the central Arabian peninsula like to say that they rhetorically that they were "always Christian", before they ever encountered Greek Orthodoxy. Ever heard of the Ghassanid kingdom, for instance? There are settled Christian bedouin tribes in Jordan whose forbears were converted by a Jerusalem bishop the beginning of the fifth century, a bishop of whom was a signatory at the council of Ephesus. Thirdly, in ways not presumed by western opinionators in 2010, families changed their religious identity in earlier centuries, such that an Lebanese Shi'ite family now was a Maronite family 200 years ago and vice versa.
Given that so many writers and readers at First Things have so much ego- and career-investment in declaiming and agitprop regarding Arabs-by-blood, their nefarious essence and hellish religion--the ill-effects of which non-Arab-by-blood Muslims may escape by virtue of being non-Arabs--it's no wonder that they have spent no effort on a definition of the ethnic Arab as distinct from the native Arabic speaker. For those of you here who really pretend to worship, obey and emulate Jesus Christ, and those of you non-Christians who pretend to do the equivalent, should you continue in your calumnies against Arabs-by-blood, God will certainly not be pleased with you, and the penalty will be first in your own characters and secondly in your spiritual witness. This is not an sentimental religious matter; it's a matter of logic and morality.
10.27.2010 | 10:26pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The presumption that a native Arabic speaker/ethnic Arab who is a Christian is not an Arab by blood is a phenomenal piece of ignorance. "
No, it is logic. Prior to the Muslim invasion in the 630s, there were few if any ethnic Arabs in the Roman province of Syria-Palestina (approximately Syria, Israel and the West Bank). As I said, the Muslims came in as a thin ruling elite, while the majority of the population remained Christian. Over time, the exactions of dhimmitude caused a slow but steady trickle of defections to Islam, but at least a plurality of the population was still Christian down to the thirteenth century, when, as I also noted, the Turks initiated a population transfer from Yemen to Palestine.
It is important, in considering this, to remember that under Sharia law, it is a capital offense (apostasy) to convert from Islam to Christianity or any other religion. So there was no influx of Muslims into the Christian community--the traffic was all one way. In addition, under Sharia, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man, while the children of a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman must be raised as Muslims.
Therefore, all those Middle Easterners who are Christian today, with very, very few exceptions, are the direct descendants of the Middle Eastern Christians of the 7th century. They are the remnant of a brilliant, dynamic civilization that has been systematically ground down for sixteen centuries, but which refuses to roll over and die.
They call themselves "Arab Christians", but they are only linguistically "Arab"--and Arabic was only adopted as the liturgical language of the Melkite and other Middle Eastern Churches some centuries after the conquest, as Arabic slowly displaced Greek and Syriac as the language of the people.
Yes, I have heard of the Ghassanids, and I know about the Assyrian Christian enclaves along the Persian Gulf (which had significant influence on Mohammed's theology). However, genetically, they don't play much of a role in the demography of the Middle Eastern Christian community today. The genes don't lie.
And don't be silly, John. I'll call you whatever I please.
No, it is logic. Prior to the Muslim invasion in the 630s, there were few if any ethnic Arabs in the Roman province of Syria-Palestina (approximately Syria, Israel and the West Bank). As I said, the Muslims came in as a thin ruling elite, while the majority of the population remained Christian. Over time, the exactions of dhimmitude caused a slow but steady trickle of defections to Islam, but at least a plurality of the population was still Christian down to the thirteenth century, when, as I also noted, the Turks initiated a population transfer from Yemen to Palestine.
It is important, in considering this, to remember that under Sharia law, it is a capital offense (apostasy) to convert from Islam to Christianity or any other religion. So there was no influx of Muslims into the Christian community--the traffic was all one way. In addition, under Sharia, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man, while the children of a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman must be raised as Muslims.
Therefore, all those Middle Easterners who are Christian today, with very, very few exceptions, are the direct descendants of the Middle Eastern Christians of the 7th century. They are the remnant of a brilliant, dynamic civilization that has been systematically ground down for sixteen centuries, but which refuses to roll over and die.
They call themselves "Arab Christians", but they are only linguistically "Arab"--and Arabic was only adopted as the liturgical language of the Melkite and other Middle Eastern Churches some centuries after the conquest, as Arabic slowly displaced Greek and Syriac as the language of the people.
Yes, I have heard of the Ghassanids, and I know about the Assyrian Christian enclaves along the Persian Gulf (which had significant influence on Mohammed's theology). However, genetically, they don't play much of a role in the demography of the Middle Eastern Christian community today. The genes don't lie.
And don't be silly, John. I'll call you whatever I please.
10.27.2010 | 10:35pm
Stuart Koehl says:
I forgot to mention that, in Acts of the Apostles, the "Arabia' in question is the Roman province of Nabatean Arabia (now in Jordan) with its capital in the famous rock-hewn city of Petra, and its inhabitants, while known as Arabs (the later Roman Emperor Philip the Arab hailed from there) were not related to the Arab tribesmen of the Arabian peninsula, but for the most part the same goulash of Greeks, Phoenicians and Syrians found elsewhere in the Roman Middle East. They did not even speak Arabic, but rather Greek and Aramaic, the two lingua francas of the classic Near East.
The true Arabs known to the Romans were the Bedou of the Arabian peninsula, who were definitely on the "outside" and considered to be barbarians. Not merely the Romans, but also their client kingdoms worked assiduously to keep them on the outside, building extensive "limes" and patrolling the border area to minimize their raids (razzia) and maintain the security of the caravan routes.
Now, unless all the classicists and ethnographers are wrong, which seems unlikely, my hypothesis that the Middle Eastern Christians have essentially maintained a distinct ethnic identity from the Arab population is sound.
The true Arabs known to the Romans were the Bedou of the Arabian peninsula, who were definitely on the "outside" and considered to be barbarians. Not merely the Romans, but also their client kingdoms worked assiduously to keep them on the outside, building extensive "limes" and patrolling the border area to minimize their raids (razzia) and maintain the security of the caravan routes.
Now, unless all the classicists and ethnographers are wrong, which seems unlikely, my hypothesis that the Middle Eastern Christians have essentially maintained a distinct ethnic identity from the Arab population is sound.
10.28.2010 | 12:37am
Michael says:
Stuart,
I don’t believe I am being “ahistorical,” but I’m happy to hear your reasons for thinking so. You don’t have to be so insulting.
I don’t believe I am being “ahistorical,” but I’m happy to hear your reasons for thinking so. You don’t have to be so insulting.
10.28.2010 | 8:45am
Stuart Koehl says:
"You don’t have to be so insulting."
I just want you to know I was not insulted when you accused me of "a phenomenal piece of ignorance". PO'ed, but not insulted.
I just want you to know I was not insulted when you accused me of "a phenomenal piece of ignorance". PO'ed, but not insulted.
10.28.2010 | 12:48pm
Krakow says:
The back and forth between Goldman and Koehl is worthy of a sitcom, reality TV or SNL skit. Could we bottle it and sell it. Bravo. Very very good stuff. Truly enjoyed this bout. The opponents were fit and well prepared although there is always room for improvement. Please count me as a spectator awaiting a rematch.
10.28.2010 | 2:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Actually, Goldman responded to me precisely once, after which he ignored me studiously.
10.28.2010 | 3:33pm
Chris Balducci says:
patricksarsfield,
You criticize my criticism of the conduct of the Lebanese Christian community in the Lebanese Civil War. You say I have no right to judge what they did or hold them to a higher standard because I wasn't there. I admit that it is easy for me to write what I did because I wasn't there. I can't say how I would have acted. As I stated earlier in my comment: "When it comes to war, no participants have clean hands". In other words, it is "kill or be killed". All I was trying to say was, that in my opinion, the Lebanese Christians failed to live up to Jesus's command to "love your neighbor as yourself". In other words, I don't think they emerged from that war with a greater moral authrority than the non-Christians (Muslims and Druze). I hold them to a higher standard because I don't know if a similar statement is found in the Koran.
But I digress. I don't understand why it is that Israel is the scapegoat for problems in the Middle East. The British and French drew the boundaries of the countries that exist there now, without asking what the tribes thought about the matter.
I hope and pray there can be peace everywhere, and not just an absence of conflict.
You criticize my criticism of the conduct of the Lebanese Christian community in the Lebanese Civil War. You say I have no right to judge what they did or hold them to a higher standard because I wasn't there. I admit that it is easy for me to write what I did because I wasn't there. I can't say how I would have acted. As I stated earlier in my comment: "When it comes to war, no participants have clean hands". In other words, it is "kill or be killed". All I was trying to say was, that in my opinion, the Lebanese Christians failed to live up to Jesus's command to "love your neighbor as yourself". In other words, I don't think they emerged from that war with a greater moral authrority than the non-Christians (Muslims and Druze). I hold them to a higher standard because I don't know if a similar statement is found in the Koran.
But I digress. I don't understand why it is that Israel is the scapegoat for problems in the Middle East. The British and French drew the boundaries of the countries that exist there now, without asking what the tribes thought about the matter.
I hope and pray there can be peace everywhere, and not just an absence of conflict.
10.28.2010 | 6:33pm
John Cummins says:
There may actually be "something uniquely 'different' about Arabs", as certain studies have indicated. See article at, http://tinyurl.com/22ovjad
10.28.2010 | 6:36pm
Stuart Koehl says:
" I don't understand why it is that Israel is the scapegoat for problems in the Middle East. "
Because they are Western. Because they are successful and prosperous. But most of all, because they are Jews.
Because they are Western. Because they are successful and prosperous. But most of all, because they are Jews.
10.28.2010 | 7:09pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"All I was trying to say was, that in my opinion, the Lebanese Christians failed to live up to Jesus's command to "love your neighbor as yourself"."
Do you know anybody who has?
Do you know anybody who has?
10.28.2010 | 9:25pm
Krakow says:
Goldman is just holding out for more money from the promoter before reengaging. That’s what heavyweights typically do. More money will come to both heavyweights if the promoter moves this to a bigger venue. Imagine: “Mad Men” scenery bathed in whiskey and smoke with breaks only to sleep, an entourage of Middle Eastern jet-setters dedicated to the preparation of heavyweights for debate and a beautiful mysterious woman in a black dress getting ready for another funeral. The combination of frictions and futility would bring in crushing weekly ratings from a public currently lacking even the most rudimentary knowledge of the relevance. Faith Hill would need to provide the theme song.
I hope that Goldman / Koehl has only just begun. Brilliant.
I hope that Goldman / Koehl has only just begun. Brilliant.
10.29.2010 | 7:49pm
Stephen Golay says:
I am getting sick of heart - let alone in my stomach.
Slammed the door to the Orthodox Church for the disregard and Jew-hatred I see hovering over, under, and within some of the remarks here. Is it now time to do the same on the Catholicism?
Dear Benedict, give me an answer!!!!
Do admire, Mr. Goldman's patience with the lot of you.
TAG: God's universal love was poured into his particular affection for Israel (ancient and modern). Snub that, disregard that, and suffer the penalty of the Assyrians. Maybe Dante should write up a special Hades' circle for Jew-hating Catholics - at least a Purgatory one.
TAG: The Temple Mount is God's Jewish Footprint (let it fall).
Islam goes about crying "every Jew must die". Is there a Catholic parallel to that?
I stand by my earlier posting.
Mr. Goldman needs to write a special essay summarizing his dread and fascination with the thread to this posting of his.
Slammed the door to the Orthodox Church for the disregard and Jew-hatred I see hovering over, under, and within some of the remarks here. Is it now time to do the same on the Catholicism?
Dear Benedict, give me an answer!!!!
Do admire, Mr. Goldman's patience with the lot of you.
TAG: God's universal love was poured into his particular affection for Israel (ancient and modern). Snub that, disregard that, and suffer the penalty of the Assyrians. Maybe Dante should write up a special Hades' circle for Jew-hating Catholics - at least a Purgatory one.
TAG: The Temple Mount is God's Jewish Footprint (let it fall).
Islam goes about crying "every Jew must die". Is there a Catholic parallel to that?
I stand by my earlier posting.
Mr. Goldman needs to write a special essay summarizing his dread and fascination with the thread to this posting of his.
10.30.2010 | 12:56pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Slammed the door to the Orthodox Church for the disregard and Jew-hatred I see hovering over, under, and within some of the remarks here. Is it now time to do the same on the Catholicism?"
While I do not deny that there is indeed a dark strain of anti-semitism in some Orthodox circles (particularly in Russia), it is not widespread, and I account the Orthodox among some of my closest friends--even though I was born a Jew. I chose to become a Greek Catholic, but I could just as easily have become Orthodox. I find very little anti-semitism among Catholics, Greek or Roman--rather the opposite: there is an almost pathological desire to avoid giving offense to Jews (or rather, that noisy bunch of secularists of Jewish descent who claim to speak for the Jews), even where no offense is intended or even given. Apologies for past faults, real and imagined, abound.
"Do admire, Mr. Goldman's patience with the lot of you."
I rather admire my patience with Goldman's aggressive ignorance of Catholic theology and ecclesiology, so I guess we're even.
"Mr. Goldman needs to write a special essay summarizing his dread and fascination with the thread to this posting of his."
I've seen a lot of mangled syntax in my day, but this is in a league of its own. Just what were you really trying to say, here?
While I do not deny that there is indeed a dark strain of anti-semitism in some Orthodox circles (particularly in Russia), it is not widespread, and I account the Orthodox among some of my closest friends--even though I was born a Jew. I chose to become a Greek Catholic, but I could just as easily have become Orthodox. I find very little anti-semitism among Catholics, Greek or Roman--rather the opposite: there is an almost pathological desire to avoid giving offense to Jews (or rather, that noisy bunch of secularists of Jewish descent who claim to speak for the Jews), even where no offense is intended or even given. Apologies for past faults, real and imagined, abound.
"Do admire, Mr. Goldman's patience with the lot of you."
I rather admire my patience with Goldman's aggressive ignorance of Catholic theology and ecclesiology, so I guess we're even.
"Mr. Goldman needs to write a special essay summarizing his dread and fascination with the thread to this posting of his."
I've seen a lot of mangled syntax in my day, but this is in a league of its own. Just what were you really trying to say, here?
10.30.2010 | 1:08pm
Krakow says:
William Shatner got away with over acting but Golay is taking things too far. It's OK if some 'stuff' boomerangs back to Goldman. He’s a big boy. Then, maybe we should chug on over to namby-pamby land where maybe we can find some self confidence for you, ya jackwagon.
10.30.2010 | 8:52pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Then, maybe we should chug on over to namby-pamby land where maybe we can find some self confidence for you, ya jackwagon."
Talk about synchronicity! That ad just ran on Discover Channel a minute ago.
Talk about synchronicity! That ad just ran on Discover Channel a minute ago.
10.31.2010 | 12:31pm
Peter says:
This was a very enlightening discussion by many knowledgeable participants.
I grew up in eastern Washington State around Baptist like protestants and eventually made my way to the Roman Catholic Church, but have always been interested in eastern Christianity and topics like Theosis. I had a conversion experience, a born again experience, and the emphasis is on experience, not so much theology. I believe I have received the Comforter and so am drawn to various Christian mystics.
So Stuart got me looking into the Greek Catholic Church, there is a Byzantine Catholic Church in Seattle. Only since my wife and kids are Roman Catholic I couldn’t really convert, but may ask questions.
I grew up in eastern Washington State around Baptist like protestants and eventually made my way to the Roman Catholic Church, but have always been interested in eastern Christianity and topics like Theosis. I had a conversion experience, a born again experience, and the emphasis is on experience, not so much theology. I believe I have received the Comforter and so am drawn to various Christian mystics.
So Stuart got me looking into the Greek Catholic Church, there is a Byzantine Catholic Church in Seattle. Only since my wife and kids are Roman Catholic I couldn’t really convert, but may ask questions.
10.31.2010 | 3:05pm
Max says:
I just want to express my horror at this article's rude tone toward the Melkite Church.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
10.31.2010 | 5:16pm
Gil Costello says:
When I read Stephen Golay’s protest I distinctly heard voices from the ashes of those Jews murdered in the most heinous fashion in Nazi ovens.
I highly recommend that those who adhere to sesessionism with such passion read Roy H. Schoeman's book "Salvation is from the Jews". And for those who want to deny the very real threat to Jews in the Middle East, including the annihilation of Israel with nuclear weapons, please read Chapter 7, titled "Anti-Semitism after the Holocaust”, and especially on page 271, "Official Arab Anti-Semitism" to possibly grasp the nature of this very real threat.
Some posts here sent me on a wild search for "sesessionism" in the Catholic Church as a dogmatic construct, and I began my search with a book that I consider a miracle, published in 1952, titled, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr.Ludwig Ott. This book has been a sure guide for me this past 25 years since I returned to the Church on questions of firmly established dogmas and doctrines. It is a textbook, a basic course of dogmatic theology. And it contains approximately 250,000 words on what Dr. Ott considers the essentials in dogma and doctrine, and not a single mention is in that book on sesessionism, even though the belief has been with the Church for 2000 years and used to create a depth-oriented anti-Semitism.
I also couldn't find "sesessionism" on any renowned Catholic encyclopedia online. Nor could I find it in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. I looked diligently in the many books I possess by Hans Urs von Balthasar, whom I consider the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century, and probably of any century after Thomas Aquinas.
Whatever the word “sesessionism” has meant to Catholics over the past two millennia, what is certain is that it now has popular usage in the circles of Catholic anti-Semitism. I'm just hopeful that some renowned theologian will come out with an explication on how this word has morphed through the centuries and how it found a permanent home in anti-Semitic Christian circles, where it now seethes venom against Jews and puts them in danger.
As I alluded to in a previous post, questions on dogmatic and doctrinal Christian constructs always reside in mystery, and when the mystery eludes us, we are always in trouble, because in eluding the mystery we sever from Christ.
I will part from this thread with a prayer from John Paul II, uttered from the Western Wall, on the occasion of being invited there by Rabbi Michael Melchior, a profound honor and gesture of reconciliation of us Christians with our elder brothers and sisters:
God of our fathers,
You chose Abraham and his descendants
to bring your names to the nations;
we are deeply saddened
by the behavior of those
who in the course of history
have caused these children of Yours to suffer
and asking Your forgiveness
we wish to commit ourselves
to genuine brotherhood
with the people of the Covenant
I highly recommend that those who adhere to sesessionism with such passion read Roy H. Schoeman's book "Salvation is from the Jews". And for those who want to deny the very real threat to Jews in the Middle East, including the annihilation of Israel with nuclear weapons, please read Chapter 7, titled "Anti-Semitism after the Holocaust”, and especially on page 271, "Official Arab Anti-Semitism" to possibly grasp the nature of this very real threat.
Some posts here sent me on a wild search for "sesessionism" in the Catholic Church as a dogmatic construct, and I began my search with a book that I consider a miracle, published in 1952, titled, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr.Ludwig Ott. This book has been a sure guide for me this past 25 years since I returned to the Church on questions of firmly established dogmas and doctrines. It is a textbook, a basic course of dogmatic theology. And it contains approximately 250,000 words on what Dr. Ott considers the essentials in dogma and doctrine, and not a single mention is in that book on sesessionism, even though the belief has been with the Church for 2000 years and used to create a depth-oriented anti-Semitism.
I also couldn't find "sesessionism" on any renowned Catholic encyclopedia online. Nor could I find it in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. I looked diligently in the many books I possess by Hans Urs von Balthasar, whom I consider the greatest Catholic theologian of the 20th century, and probably of any century after Thomas Aquinas.
Whatever the word “sesessionism” has meant to Catholics over the past two millennia, what is certain is that it now has popular usage in the circles of Catholic anti-Semitism. I'm just hopeful that some renowned theologian will come out with an explication on how this word has morphed through the centuries and how it found a permanent home in anti-Semitic Christian circles, where it now seethes venom against Jews and puts them in danger.
As I alluded to in a previous post, questions on dogmatic and doctrinal Christian constructs always reside in mystery, and when the mystery eludes us, we are always in trouble, because in eluding the mystery we sever from Christ.
I will part from this thread with a prayer from John Paul II, uttered from the Western Wall, on the occasion of being invited there by Rabbi Michael Melchior, a profound honor and gesture of reconciliation of us Christians with our elder brothers and sisters:
God of our fathers,
You chose Abraham and his descendants
to bring your names to the nations;
we are deeply saddened
by the behavior of those
who in the course of history
have caused these children of Yours to suffer
and asking Your forgiveness
we wish to commit ourselves
to genuine brotherhood
with the people of the Covenant
10.31.2010 | 10:55pm
Krakow says:
“The Melkite cleric in question, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, headed the commission that drafted the Synod’s final statement. Speaking personally and not for the Synod he said..."
But Goldman, as a Jew, confronted and offended all Melkites, not just Archbishop Cyril. Koehl, as Melkite, and others took offense and responded. That’s how I read the stuff without listening to screaming ashes.
Logically thinking, the Archbishop’s personal statement is lacking because it doesn’t even contemplate where the Jews would go if Israel were to become somehow unavailable. It would be ridiculous to suggest Greece as their next destination although it does seem that Goldman has calculated that soon lot of room will be there. I think the Jews should stay where they are, far away from me. We have a saying, “Family is best seen in photo albums.” Jews are family but so are many others including Melkites. Feel free to send me your photos but don’t move next door.
As for Iran, pay Russia $50 billion to kill the Iranian nuclear program. Don’t ask how they are going to do it. And stop expecting things to happen for free.
I hope that Goldman and Koehl will continue the confrontation because it's got plenty of us thinking. These guys are good.
But Goldman, as a Jew, confronted and offended all Melkites, not just Archbishop Cyril. Koehl, as Melkite, and others took offense and responded. That’s how I read the stuff without listening to screaming ashes.
Logically thinking, the Archbishop’s personal statement is lacking because it doesn’t even contemplate where the Jews would go if Israel were to become somehow unavailable. It would be ridiculous to suggest Greece as their next destination although it does seem that Goldman has calculated that soon lot of room will be there. I think the Jews should stay where they are, far away from me. We have a saying, “Family is best seen in photo albums.” Jews are family but so are many others including Melkites. Feel free to send me your photos but don’t move next door.
As for Iran, pay Russia $50 billion to kill the Iranian nuclear program. Don’t ask how they are going to do it. And stop expecting things to happen for free.
I hope that Goldman and Koehl will continue the confrontation because it's got plenty of us thinking. These guys are good.
10.31.2010 | 11:44pm
Gil Costello says:
The 1974 Stuart Rosenberg film, "Voyage of the Damned", recounts the story of how Nazi propagandists proved to Europe and America that they did not want anything to do with Jews, regardless what trouble they were in. And it worked: a shipload of 937 Jews were refused sanctuary in Europe and America, and they all ended up in the Nazi ovens.
What I sense clearly all around me, especially in Christian Peace and Justice Committees, is a growing acceptance of the notion that we can bring peace to the Middle East if we simply embrace Arab anti-Semitism. Dismissal statements like "...pay Russia $50 billion to kill the Iranian nuclear program" will not stem the tide of this new international wave of anti-Semitism. I do feel very much like I’m in the progressive era of pre-Hitler Germany where Christians felt just as comfortable with their anti-Semitism as Christians are today.
What I sense clearly all around me, especially in Christian Peace and Justice Committees, is a growing acceptance of the notion that we can bring peace to the Middle East if we simply embrace Arab anti-Semitism. Dismissal statements like "...pay Russia $50 billion to kill the Iranian nuclear program" will not stem the tide of this new international wave of anti-Semitism. I do feel very much like I’m in the progressive era of pre-Hitler Germany where Christians felt just as comfortable with their anti-Semitism as Christians are today.
11.1.2010 | 12:31am
Gil Costello says:
The 2005 brazenly anti-Semitic film, “Paradise Now”, got close to universal applause from American and European critics (including Jewish ones who, like some Jewish intellectuals in Hitler’s Germany, believe that accommodating anti-Semitism is a way to rise above it): I couldn’t find a single review that shed light on this film’s anti-Semitic content (especially its giving new credence to Nazi images of Jews poisoning well water, and Jewish men [the only Jewish man in the film as archetype] as slovenly immoral men). The film’s message: Sure, terrorism is a terrible thing, and we must not embrace it, and possibly even criticize it, but then again, it’s the Jews who bring it on themselves.
This is one of those films that Christian Peace and Justice Committees highly recommend. So, if nothing else, what is accomplished here is that in arguing about whether anti-Semitism is on the rise in Middle Eastern Christian churches, we can avoid looking at how it is goose-stepping in ballet slippers across Europe and America.
This is one of those films that Christian Peace and Justice Committees highly recommend. So, if nothing else, what is accomplished here is that in arguing about whether anti-Semitism is on the rise in Middle Eastern Christian churches, we can avoid looking at how it is goose-stepping in ballet slippers across Europe and America.
11.1.2010 | 12:39am
Gil Costello says:
And I really don’t like how this impending nightmare is portrayed here as just another opportunity to be spectators to intellectual fisticuffs. I suppose this is what Flannery O’Connor meant when she referred to certain intellectuals as “intellectuals”.
11.1.2010 | 12:47am
Gil Costello says:
"I think the Jews should stay where they are, far away from me."
Nazism isn't Christianity, but if a Christian were a Nazi, that would be his sentiment. I mean, what's the farthest you can get a Jew away from you? I mean, if you're logical?
Nazism isn't Christianity, but if a Christian were a Nazi, that would be his sentiment. I mean, what's the farthest you can get a Jew away from you? I mean, if you're logical?
11.1.2010 | 1:44am
Gil Costello says:
I doubt I can inspire many to read Schoeman’s "Salvation is from the Jews", especially the chapter on Arab anti-Semitism, so I will give a sampling from pp 235-236:
"Among the first congratulatory telegrams [Hitler] received were several from Arab capitals. Parties styled after the Nazis soon formed throughout the Arab world. One was Syria's Social Nationalist Party, whose leader, Anton Sa'da, called himself the 'Fuhrer of Syria'...Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath party recalls, 'We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books...Hitler, on his end, said, 'The Arab liberation movement is our natural ally'....
"A number of Arab leaders had worked closely with Hitler in his campaign to exterminate the Jews and continued the fight against the Jews...A prime example is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.
"As the leader of the Arabs in Palestine during the 1930s he called a jihad to annihilate the Jews of Palestine. In his own words: 'I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!' He incited anti-Jewish riots that caused the deaths of hundreds of Jewish settlers, including in the Jerusalem riots of 1929, in which the entire Jewish population of Hebron was massacred..."
Schoeman at one point notes that “Mein Kampf” in 1999 was #6 on the best-seller list of Palestinian Arabs. When Christians grow up in Nazi-inspired cultures, what are our expectations of them? We can perhaps forgive them for their possibly fear-based anti-Semitic complicity, but not excuse it or remain silent about it. When I read Goldman’s article my sense was that he was encouraging us not to be silent this time. And the proof is in the pudding: in our silence anti-Semitism is once again on the rise, internationally, and is blatantly visible at the UN.
Oh, and I misquoted Flannery O'Connor's term. It is "intelluctuals".
"Among the first congratulatory telegrams [Hitler] received were several from Arab capitals. Parties styled after the Nazis soon formed throughout the Arab world. One was Syria's Social Nationalist Party, whose leader, Anton Sa'da, called himself the 'Fuhrer of Syria'...Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath party recalls, 'We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books...Hitler, on his end, said, 'The Arab liberation movement is our natural ally'....
"A number of Arab leaders had worked closely with Hitler in his campaign to exterminate the Jews and continued the fight against the Jews...A prime example is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.
"As the leader of the Arabs in Palestine during the 1930s he called a jihad to annihilate the Jews of Palestine. In his own words: 'I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!' He incited anti-Jewish riots that caused the deaths of hundreds of Jewish settlers, including in the Jerusalem riots of 1929, in which the entire Jewish population of Hebron was massacred..."
Schoeman at one point notes that “Mein Kampf” in 1999 was #6 on the best-seller list of Palestinian Arabs. When Christians grow up in Nazi-inspired cultures, what are our expectations of them? We can perhaps forgive them for their possibly fear-based anti-Semitic complicity, but not excuse it or remain silent about it. When I read Goldman’s article my sense was that he was encouraging us not to be silent this time. And the proof is in the pudding: in our silence anti-Semitism is once again on the rise, internationally, and is blatantly visible at the UN.
Oh, and I misquoted Flannery O'Connor's term. It is "intelluctuals".
11.1.2010 | 11:07am
Krakow says:
Prominent lobbyists have said “It’s Iran first, it’s not Palestinians first.” Others have argued that the Palestinians should negotiate before Iran's nuclear ambitions are crushed. Hitler doesn’t have a say in this. Who do you think should go first?
“What's the farthest you can get a Jew away from you?” About the same distance as you can get away from other family members who are in conflict. I also stay away from a buddy who always gets into bar fights. Why do you ask?
Would the hysteria temper if the probability of Iran becoming an American ally was exponentially higher than an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel? What would it take for Iran to become an American ally, again? Probably not that much. Maybe even less than $50 billion.
“What's the farthest you can get a Jew away from you?” About the same distance as you can get away from other family members who are in conflict. I also stay away from a buddy who always gets into bar fights. Why do you ask?
Would the hysteria temper if the probability of Iran becoming an American ally was exponentially higher than an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel? What would it take for Iran to become an American ally, again? Probably not that much. Maybe even less than $50 billion.
11.1.2010 | 1:58pm
Gil Costello says:
Krakow - My point is that the problem is not Iran or the Palestinians, but anti-Semitism. The greatest anthropological discovery of the 20th century was Girard's great insight into cyclical violence rooted in the scapegoat mechanism. It is clear to me that more and more Europeans and Americans are being culled into accepting an engaged anti-Semitism as the only process possible in solving the problems of the Middle East. In other words, Jews as scapegoats is once again raising its venomous head, and I see Christians everywhere getting on board with this.
In this age of escalating terrorism from radical Islamic terrorists, with the awareness that they will in the near future have nuclear capabilities as well as chemical weapons, Christians will, like in Hitler's Germany, have to make a decision, and what I see is a repeat: the silence is deafening. As with the Jew Jesus, we Christians will have to make a real decision: we are in or we are out; we stand with him or against him. Will we once again scapegoat Jews, or will we stand with our elder brothers and sisters, being good friends as required by Jesus? Being good friends to Arabs is also required, and that means not supporting those who promote anti-Semitism, because anti-Semitism is a direct hatred of God, and to hate God is to hate all peoples.
R.R. Reno's October 28 piece, "Culture Matters More than Politics", is instructive: culture takes precedence over politics: Iran's culture is defying anti-Semitism and is advancing the good, the beautiful and the true peculiar to that great culture. Our big mistake during Stalin's reign was keeping silent about the persecution of scientists, artists and students.
Heed John Paul II: “Be not afraid.” Jesus conquered death. All that is required of the Christian is to love, and to scapegoat anyone or any people is not love. In the moment I face my death, including a terrorist attack, I want to reside in love, not fear, and this is the great gift Jesus gave us.
In this age of escalating terrorism from radical Islamic terrorists, with the awareness that they will in the near future have nuclear capabilities as well as chemical weapons, Christians will, like in Hitler's Germany, have to make a decision, and what I see is a repeat: the silence is deafening. As with the Jew Jesus, we Christians will have to make a real decision: we are in or we are out; we stand with him or against him. Will we once again scapegoat Jews, or will we stand with our elder brothers and sisters, being good friends as required by Jesus? Being good friends to Arabs is also required, and that means not supporting those who promote anti-Semitism, because anti-Semitism is a direct hatred of God, and to hate God is to hate all peoples.
R.R. Reno's October 28 piece, "Culture Matters More than Politics", is instructive: culture takes precedence over politics: Iran's culture is defying anti-Semitism and is advancing the good, the beautiful and the true peculiar to that great culture. Our big mistake during Stalin's reign was keeping silent about the persecution of scientists, artists and students.
Heed John Paul II: “Be not afraid.” Jesus conquered death. All that is required of the Christian is to love, and to scapegoat anyone or any people is not love. In the moment I face my death, including a terrorist attack, I want to reside in love, not fear, and this is the great gift Jesus gave us.
11.1.2010 | 2:45pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I see Christians everywhere getting on board with this."
Actually, I see Christians everywhere but the United States getting on board with this. It is perhaps unique to this country, but conservative Christians, particularly Evangelical Protestants, are among the world's strongest supporters of Israel--far stronger, in fact, that most liberal Jews. That they do so because of their own understanding of Christian eschatology is irrelevant; the practical matter is they like and admire Israel and Jews, creating something of a conundrum for American Jews who do support Israel but loathe Evangelicals. This goes all the way to interpersonal relations, or, as Elliott Abrams put it, "the problem isn't that American Christians want to kill us, but that they want to marry our daughters".
On the other hand, mainline Protestants are increasingly hostile to Israel, but then, mainline Protestants are increasingly hostile to Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox are very much a mixed bag, but in the U.S. you see very little of the overt antisemitism that is sometimes found among the more reactionary Orthodox (particularly in Eastern Europe), while Catholics seem to ignore the host of mixed messages emanating from the Vatican on the subject of the Middle East.
Actually, I see Christians everywhere but the United States getting on board with this. It is perhaps unique to this country, but conservative Christians, particularly Evangelical Protestants, are among the world's strongest supporters of Israel--far stronger, in fact, that most liberal Jews. That they do so because of their own understanding of Christian eschatology is irrelevant; the practical matter is they like and admire Israel and Jews, creating something of a conundrum for American Jews who do support Israel but loathe Evangelicals. This goes all the way to interpersonal relations, or, as Elliott Abrams put it, "the problem isn't that American Christians want to kill us, but that they want to marry our daughters".
On the other hand, mainline Protestants are increasingly hostile to Israel, but then, mainline Protestants are increasingly hostile to Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox are very much a mixed bag, but in the U.S. you see very little of the overt antisemitism that is sometimes found among the more reactionary Orthodox (particularly in Eastern Europe), while Catholics seem to ignore the host of mixed messages emanating from the Vatican on the subject of the Middle East.
11.1.2010 | 3:00pm
Krakow says:
The probability of a deal between Iran and US continues to increase with Obama’s lack of popularity at home. He has to pull a rabbit out of the hat to win in 2012 and Iran might be the only place in the world where the opportunity exists. Before a deal could be struck, Ahmadinejad will make louder threats and a few more people will be labeled as anti-Semitists, not that there is anything wrong with being an anti-Semitist. It’s almost like being an anti-Melkite. But when Christians grow up holding on to their mothers’ skirts they can’t interpret current events outside the constructs of what mommy told them.
In the evenings, I walk into my Jewish neighbor’s home without knocking, I drink his vodka and then I leave. That’s not anti-Semitism. That’s extortion. For me to switch sides he’d have to start serving top shelf vodka.
I agree with Goldman much more often than I disagree with him. That’s why I have been reading his musings for the past several years. Koehl also seems like a fantastic writer. They deserve their own show. I will revert back to being a spectator.
In the evenings, I walk into my Jewish neighbor’s home without knocking, I drink his vodka and then I leave. That’s not anti-Semitism. That’s extortion. For me to switch sides he’d have to start serving top shelf vodka.
I agree with Goldman much more often than I disagree with him. That’s why I have been reading his musings for the past several years. Koehl also seems like a fantastic writer. They deserve their own show. I will revert back to being a spectator.
11.1.2010 | 3:45pm
David Goldman says:
No apologies.
Admittedly I was tough on the Melkites (although not nearly so tough as I have been about Reform Judaism). But I return to the historical point Prior to World War I, Levantine Christianity was Orthodox, principally Greek and Armenian. The Turks crushed Orthodoxy in blood; France and the Vatican then carved out Lebanon as an "Arab Christian" enclave in the Middle East. The West put the Maronites into power, and into the line of fire, and then abandoned them to their fate, most onerously when the Reagan administration and the French withdrew their forces after the 1983 Beirut bombings. The worldly and talented Maronites emigrated, because they could; the Iran-backed Shi'ites stayed because they had nowhere to go. Arab-speaking Christians in declining Diaspora denominations are left to contemplate the destruction of their former homes from afar while a declining, infertile remnant clings on at the mercy of Iran. These are the sad facts of the matter. Add to this the inflated ambitions of Arab Christians, and the pope's rather mystical belief that Arab Christians will provide the leaven for a revival of Arab culture, and we have a formula for bitter disappointment and self-deception. The greatest self-deception is that Christianity might survive under Iranian denomination. Ask the Assyrian Christians who died in yesterday's terror attack in Iraq: what "Israeli occupation" occasioned that despicable act of mass murder?
Most of all i blame the Western powers. Who let Syria (and through it Iran) dominate Lebanese politics? And who let Islamists take power in Iraq under the cover of nation-building? And who promoted Tayyip Erdogan as a poster-boy for moderate Islam? The Bush as well as the Obama administrations, which for different reasons refused to confront Iranian influence in the region.
For Arab Christians to blame Israel rather than Iran for their problems is mendacious as well as self-defeating. Archbishop Bustros' unfortunate statements well up from a sense of desperation. If calling attention to the causes of that desperation seems "insulting" to the Melkites, that's just too bad. Those are the facts, and if they offend sensibilities, it is the sensibilities that should change--the facts won't.
Admittedly I was tough on the Melkites (although not nearly so tough as I have been about Reform Judaism). But I return to the historical point Prior to World War I, Levantine Christianity was Orthodox, principally Greek and Armenian. The Turks crushed Orthodoxy in blood; France and the Vatican then carved out Lebanon as an "Arab Christian" enclave in the Middle East. The West put the Maronites into power, and into the line of fire, and then abandoned them to their fate, most onerously when the Reagan administration and the French withdrew their forces after the 1983 Beirut bombings. The worldly and talented Maronites emigrated, because they could; the Iran-backed Shi'ites stayed because they had nowhere to go. Arab-speaking Christians in declining Diaspora denominations are left to contemplate the destruction of their former homes from afar while a declining, infertile remnant clings on at the mercy of Iran. These are the sad facts of the matter. Add to this the inflated ambitions of Arab Christians, and the pope's rather mystical belief that Arab Christians will provide the leaven for a revival of Arab culture, and we have a formula for bitter disappointment and self-deception. The greatest self-deception is that Christianity might survive under Iranian denomination. Ask the Assyrian Christians who died in yesterday's terror attack in Iraq: what "Israeli occupation" occasioned that despicable act of mass murder?
Most of all i blame the Western powers. Who let Syria (and through it Iran) dominate Lebanese politics? And who let Islamists take power in Iraq under the cover of nation-building? And who promoted Tayyip Erdogan as a poster-boy for moderate Islam? The Bush as well as the Obama administrations, which for different reasons refused to confront Iranian influence in the region.
For Arab Christians to blame Israel rather than Iran for their problems is mendacious as well as self-defeating. Archbishop Bustros' unfortunate statements well up from a sense of desperation. If calling attention to the causes of that desperation seems "insulting" to the Melkites, that's just too bad. Those are the facts, and if they offend sensibilities, it is the sensibilities that should change--the facts won't.
11.1.2010 | 4:37pm
Stephen Golay says:
[Note: regarding Mr. Koehl's concern over "mangled syntax" see below.]
ON EASTERN CHRISTIANITY AND JEW-HATING, AS PICTURED-OUT BY THAT MELKITE BISHOP:
Earlier (somewhere) I posted an observation on my years with the Antiochian Orthodox (Damascus Patriarchate).
On entering the Orthodox Church it was quite evident that a hostile stance towards Jews and Israel was expected.
Will always readily testify to the good within that communion. Yet coating that which was worthy of praise was the sticky oil of Jew-hatred. It was unmistakable. It oiled up the way they were. I witnessed it..
To this day I can still scent the smell of it. Stung my nostrils on the Great Holy Saturday my wife and I were received into the Orthodox Church. But on that bright morn what occupied my mind were the festival sounds of Jew-hatred witnessed the evening before (Holy Friday) down below the sacred altar in the parish hall.
One had to wonder what rose from the basement and mingled with the incense ascending to the throne of God. What petition God was meant to fulfill. Talk about something being mangled!!
It stayed this Jew-hatred. It stuck to both Arab and convert (of which in North America there are many, mostly former evangelicals). It stench the vestments of their worship.
On a personal level, am I being too hard? Most likely. And forgive me of any unintended offense Father T., my dear friend "John". But you were asking me to robe up in a virulent anti-Zionism. Could not. I walked.
So out I went with these hardened observations:
* They (quite correctly, mind you) make no distinction between Jew and Israel. The very notion of "Jew" is irregular and irrelevant - and even irreligious. Their constitution as a people, as Jews, is dissolved and discarded. Must be if Right Belief is to triumph.
* The Jew has no claim to land (holy or otherwise). To do so would dis-intern what the triumph of Right Belief buried - the corpse of particularity, of singularity. The Jew must remain as wanderers, landless, for land possession (to the Jew) is always a religious act. With God's dispossession of the Jew, the Jew can no longer perform true religious acts. Their status as a religious people has been vacated by their rejection of the Right Belief, and its triumph. The Jew's attempt at religious deeds is an affront and rebellion against God.
* In ways small and large the above point has burrowed into the core of an Arab Christian's self-knowledge. It is a negative identity of "I am not a Jew".
* Do Arab Christians have the same gut-retching reaction against Islam? Or, in spite of second-class citizenry and persecution, is the Muslim overlord to be preferred - sought with the tribute of Christian origins scrubbed of Jews and Jewishness? Seems like it. There is an islamo-Christianity eager to lift its hen's wing over beleaguered Christians, sheltering them against the Jewish storm. Seems this bulwark is preferred to the fortress of God's Israel.
* What was it that Brigitte Gabriel wrote in her book Because They Hate about Arab Christianity and the Old Testament?
* Who was it that joined the jubilation in Beirut when Israel (foolishly) released the terrorist Samir ("Bash Jewish Babies Against eh Rocks") Kuntar? Out on the street were some candy passing Christians.
* Of course Lebanon was once 40% Christian. Numbers now tanked and tanking to single digits. What did it? A Jewish plot worthy of a Stalin conspiracy; or is God putting out a word about prices to be paid for letting snakes and serpents bite the apple of his eye?
* All this Arab Christian Jew-hating is a kind of genocide (however ill disguised) against the ancient root of Christianity, dug up and left to dry rot in the steaming heat of hot Arab anger?
* And, please, spare me the delicacies of substratum ethnic identities - with all their nuances qualifying their dhimmitude, justifying their Jew-hating and their refusal to acknowledge any Right Belief in God's covenant with Israel (ancient or modern). Instead, Arab Christianity needs to harness that identity so they can struggle against what truly debased them - ISLAM.
* As I said somewhere (earlier) walking away from the Orthodox Church was nudged by my study of Bat Yeor's magisterial Decline of Eastern Christianity: from Jihad to Dhimmitude. The weaknesses of Eastern Christianity (doctrine and culture) was transmuted into strengths by Islam and used to bludgeon Eastern Christians in submission. Tangled in that was the solidifying of Jew-hating.
ON "MANGLED SYNTAX"
See David. See David write. Look Jane. See David scatter seed. Look at seeds fall in combox soils. Good soil. Bad soil. See David look at what sprouts. Good fruit. Bad fruit. Grain and weeds. See David read both grain and weeds. Watch David think. See David go WOW. See David write another essay. Watch David scatter more seeds. [This time] watch David rake fertilizer into the bad soil. See David hoe the bad weeds. Watch David hoe, water and harvest. See David stand tall. Look Jane, see crows fly away. See hyenas run. Look at the spotted dogs sun - and a spotted bishop or two.
ON EASTERN CHRISTIANITY AND JEW-HATING, AS PICTURED-OUT BY THAT MELKITE BISHOP:
Earlier (somewhere) I posted an observation on my years with the Antiochian Orthodox (Damascus Patriarchate).
On entering the Orthodox Church it was quite evident that a hostile stance towards Jews and Israel was expected.
Will always readily testify to the good within that communion. Yet coating that which was worthy of praise was the sticky oil of Jew-hatred. It was unmistakable. It oiled up the way they were. I witnessed it..
To this day I can still scent the smell of it. Stung my nostrils on the Great Holy Saturday my wife and I were received into the Orthodox Church. But on that bright morn what occupied my mind were the festival sounds of Jew-hatred witnessed the evening before (Holy Friday) down below the sacred altar in the parish hall.
One had to wonder what rose from the basement and mingled with the incense ascending to the throne of God. What petition God was meant to fulfill. Talk about something being mangled!!
It stayed this Jew-hatred. It stuck to both Arab and convert (of which in North America there are many, mostly former evangelicals). It stench the vestments of their worship.
On a personal level, am I being too hard? Most likely. And forgive me of any unintended offense Father T., my dear friend "John". But you were asking me to robe up in a virulent anti-Zionism. Could not. I walked.
So out I went with these hardened observations:
* They (quite correctly, mind you) make no distinction between Jew and Israel. The very notion of "Jew" is irregular and irrelevant - and even irreligious. Their constitution as a people, as Jews, is dissolved and discarded. Must be if Right Belief is to triumph.
* The Jew has no claim to land (holy or otherwise). To do so would dis-intern what the triumph of Right Belief buried - the corpse of particularity, of singularity. The Jew must remain as wanderers, landless, for land possession (to the Jew) is always a religious act. With God's dispossession of the Jew, the Jew can no longer perform true religious acts. Their status as a religious people has been vacated by their rejection of the Right Belief, and its triumph. The Jew's attempt at religious deeds is an affront and rebellion against God.
* In ways small and large the above point has burrowed into the core of an Arab Christian's self-knowledge. It is a negative identity of "I am not a Jew".
* Do Arab Christians have the same gut-retching reaction against Islam? Or, in spite of second-class citizenry and persecution, is the Muslim overlord to be preferred - sought with the tribute of Christian origins scrubbed of Jews and Jewishness? Seems like it. There is an islamo-Christianity eager to lift its hen's wing over beleaguered Christians, sheltering them against the Jewish storm. Seems this bulwark is preferred to the fortress of God's Israel.
* What was it that Brigitte Gabriel wrote in her book Because They Hate about Arab Christianity and the Old Testament?
* Who was it that joined the jubilation in Beirut when Israel (foolishly) released the terrorist Samir ("Bash Jewish Babies Against eh Rocks") Kuntar? Out on the street were some candy passing Christians.
* Of course Lebanon was once 40% Christian. Numbers now tanked and tanking to single digits. What did it? A Jewish plot worthy of a Stalin conspiracy; or is God putting out a word about prices to be paid for letting snakes and serpents bite the apple of his eye?
* All this Arab Christian Jew-hating is a kind of genocide (however ill disguised) against the ancient root of Christianity, dug up and left to dry rot in the steaming heat of hot Arab anger?
* And, please, spare me the delicacies of substratum ethnic identities - with all their nuances qualifying their dhimmitude, justifying their Jew-hating and their refusal to acknowledge any Right Belief in God's covenant with Israel (ancient or modern). Instead, Arab Christianity needs to harness that identity so they can struggle against what truly debased them - ISLAM.
* As I said somewhere (earlier) walking away from the Orthodox Church was nudged by my study of Bat Yeor's magisterial Decline of Eastern Christianity: from Jihad to Dhimmitude. The weaknesses of Eastern Christianity (doctrine and culture) was transmuted into strengths by Islam and used to bludgeon Eastern Christians in submission. Tangled in that was the solidifying of Jew-hating.
ON "MANGLED SYNTAX"
See David. See David write. Look Jane. See David scatter seed. Look at seeds fall in combox soils. Good soil. Bad soil. See David look at what sprouts. Good fruit. Bad fruit. Grain and weeds. See David read both grain and weeds. Watch David think. See David go WOW. See David write another essay. Watch David scatter more seeds. [This time] watch David rake fertilizer into the bad soil. See David hoe the bad weeds. Watch David hoe, water and harvest. See David stand tall. Look Jane, see crows fly away. See hyenas run. Look at the spotted dogs sun - and a spotted bishop or two.
11.1.2010 | 4:54pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"But I return to the historical point Prior to World War I, Levantine Christianity was Orthodox, principally Greek and Armenian. The Turks crushed Orthodoxy in blood; France and the Vatican then carved out Lebanon as an "Arab Christian" enclave in the Middle East. The West put the Maronites into power, and into the line of fire, and then abandoned them to their fate, most onerously when the Reagan administration and the French withdrew their forces after the 1983 Beirut bombings."
I have to say, David, this is a pretty unbalanced picture of Middle Eastern Christianity. First of all, to say that Levantine Christianity was Orthodox is only partially correct. If by the Levant, you mean Anatolia, then yes, it was until the 1920s "exchange of populations" principally Byzantine Orthodox, with significant numbers of Armenians. But if you move into Syria, then the majority of Christians were Jacobite (i.e., "monophysite" or "Oriental Orthodox"), while the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Orthodox constituted a minority, and the Melkite Greek Catholics a minority of a minority. In Palestine and Lebanon, the field was divided almost equally among Byzantine Orthodox (Patriarchate of Jerusalem), Melkite Greek Catholic, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) and Armenians (which is why a Muslim family holds the key to the Church of the Holy Sephulchre). And if you move to Egypt, you find a huge Coptic Christian population with small enclaves of Byzantine Orthodox, Greek Catholics and Coptic Catholics. So your division is both simplistic and incomplete.
As regards the Maronites in Lebanon, the post-Versailles division of power held as long as the balance was guaranteed by the Western powers against internal disruption and external subversion. Eisenhower had no qualms about intervening in Lebanon in the 1950s, which maintained the peace for another thirty years. But, unless the U.S. was willing to establish a lasting military presence and interpose itself between the Maronites and the Palestinian radicals.
As to why I was insulted by your article, it had nothing to do with calling Bishop Cyril's (when will you guys learn to address our bishops properly?) statement and underlying policies false, impolitic and doomed to failure (I myself have done that), but with your gratuitous belittlement of the Melkite Church, your entirely faulty understanding of Catholic theology and ecclesiology, and your total misappreciation of the Melkite identity (once more, with feeling--just because they are Greek Catholics does not mean they are Greeks).
As I said at the beginning, if you had confined yourself to facts and minimized the snark, you would have made a better case and not have found yourself in opposition to me and many other Catholics on this forum who otherwise would have agreed with you on the false position of the Middle Eastern Christians.
I have to say, David, this is a pretty unbalanced picture of Middle Eastern Christianity. First of all, to say that Levantine Christianity was Orthodox is only partially correct. If by the Levant, you mean Anatolia, then yes, it was until the 1920s "exchange of populations" principally Byzantine Orthodox, with significant numbers of Armenians. But if you move into Syria, then the majority of Christians were Jacobite (i.e., "monophysite" or "Oriental Orthodox"), while the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Orthodox constituted a minority, and the Melkite Greek Catholics a minority of a minority. In Palestine and Lebanon, the field was divided almost equally among Byzantine Orthodox (Patriarchate of Jerusalem), Melkite Greek Catholic, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) and Armenians (which is why a Muslim family holds the key to the Church of the Holy Sephulchre). And if you move to Egypt, you find a huge Coptic Christian population with small enclaves of Byzantine Orthodox, Greek Catholics and Coptic Catholics. So your division is both simplistic and incomplete.
As regards the Maronites in Lebanon, the post-Versailles division of power held as long as the balance was guaranteed by the Western powers against internal disruption and external subversion. Eisenhower had no qualms about intervening in Lebanon in the 1950s, which maintained the peace for another thirty years. But, unless the U.S. was willing to establish a lasting military presence and interpose itself between the Maronites and the Palestinian radicals.
As to why I was insulted by your article, it had nothing to do with calling Bishop Cyril's (when will you guys learn to address our bishops properly?) statement and underlying policies false, impolitic and doomed to failure (I myself have done that), but with your gratuitous belittlement of the Melkite Church, your entirely faulty understanding of Catholic theology and ecclesiology, and your total misappreciation of the Melkite identity (once more, with feeling--just because they are Greek Catholics does not mean they are Greeks).
As I said at the beginning, if you had confined yourself to facts and minimized the snark, you would have made a better case and not have found yourself in opposition to me and many other Catholics on this forum who otherwise would have agreed with you on the false position of the Middle Eastern Christians.
11.1.2010 | 5:40pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"On entering the Orthodox Church it was quite evident that a hostile stance towards Jews and Israel was expected."
Most certainly not the case with the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in America. Of course, about half of the faithful and perhaps two thirds of the clergy are now composed of Evangelical Protestant converts, whose love for Israel is perhaps greater even than that of many American Jews. In another forum, a very prominent priest of the AOC explicitly denounced any notion of supersessionism with regard to the Jews and the Covenant.
"Do Arab Christians have the same gut-retching reaction against Islam? Or, in spite of second-class citizenry and persecution, is the Muslim overlord to be preferred - sought with the tribute of Christian origins scrubbed of Jews and Jewishness? Seems like it."
Fourteen centuries of dhimmitude have inculcated certain attitudes towards the oppressor, as well as towards fellow Dhimmis. As I noted, the Muslims deliberately played off one group of Dhimmis against the others, in a seemingly arbitrary manner. This in turn caused each group to try to demonstrate its loyalty to the oppressor by piling on. Thus, the Orthodox might beat up on the Maronites, or the Syrians, but be beat up themselves the next week, and so forth. One thing remained constant, however, and that was the Jews were the bottom of the ladder. It was always safe to beat up on the Jews, and this was common. Fourteen centuries of operant conditioning is hard to throw off.
"As I said somewhere (earlier) walking away from the Orthodox Church was nudged by my study of Bat Yeor's magisterial Decline of Eastern Christianity: from Jihad to Dhimmitude. The weaknesses of Eastern Christianity (doctrine and culture) was transmuted into strengths by Islam and used to bludgeon Eastern Christians in submission. Tangled in that was the solidifying of Jew-hating."
Funny, Bat Ye'or's book had a very different effect on me. But then, I'm an historian, and quite used to putting myself in other people's shoes before making hasty judgments based on rank emotionalism.
Most certainly not the case with the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in America. Of course, about half of the faithful and perhaps two thirds of the clergy are now composed of Evangelical Protestant converts, whose love for Israel is perhaps greater even than that of many American Jews. In another forum, a very prominent priest of the AOC explicitly denounced any notion of supersessionism with regard to the Jews and the Covenant.
"Do Arab Christians have the same gut-retching reaction against Islam? Or, in spite of second-class citizenry and persecution, is the Muslim overlord to be preferred - sought with the tribute of Christian origins scrubbed of Jews and Jewishness? Seems like it."
Fourteen centuries of dhimmitude have inculcated certain attitudes towards the oppressor, as well as towards fellow Dhimmis. As I noted, the Muslims deliberately played off one group of Dhimmis against the others, in a seemingly arbitrary manner. This in turn caused each group to try to demonstrate its loyalty to the oppressor by piling on. Thus, the Orthodox might beat up on the Maronites, or the Syrians, but be beat up themselves the next week, and so forth. One thing remained constant, however, and that was the Jews were the bottom of the ladder. It was always safe to beat up on the Jews, and this was common. Fourteen centuries of operant conditioning is hard to throw off.
"As I said somewhere (earlier) walking away from the Orthodox Church was nudged by my study of Bat Yeor's magisterial Decline of Eastern Christianity: from Jihad to Dhimmitude. The weaknesses of Eastern Christianity (doctrine and culture) was transmuted into strengths by Islam and used to bludgeon Eastern Christians in submission. Tangled in that was the solidifying of Jew-hating."
Funny, Bat Ye'or's book had a very different effect on me. But then, I'm an historian, and quite used to putting myself in other people's shoes before making hasty judgments based on rank emotionalism.
11.1.2010 | 6:52pm
John Cummins says:
Stuart Koehl, again, "...my hypothesis that the Middle Eastern Christians have essentially maintained a distinct ethnic identity from the Arab population is sound."
Starting points for the beginner,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
No, the Nabateans, and the other peoples of Levant including Hauran, included "Arab tribesmen of the Arabian peninsula", who actually traded on the caravan routes. The suggestion that all "Arab tribesmen of the Arabian peninsula" did was raid is ridiculous.
Stuart Koehl ("I have heard of the Ghassanids" but can't say anything about them) isn't allowed to say, "Wikipedia...!". Everything there can be corroborated with proven scholarship. Let him cite his "genetic evidence" and "DNA says otherwise".
Starting points for the beginner,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
No, the Nabateans, and the other peoples of Levant including Hauran, included "Arab tribesmen of the Arabian peninsula", who actually traded on the caravan routes. The suggestion that all "Arab tribesmen of the Arabian peninsula" did was raid is ridiculous.
Stuart Koehl ("I have heard of the Ghassanids" but can't say anything about them) isn't allowed to say, "Wikipedia...!". Everything there can be corroborated with proven scholarship. Let him cite his "genetic evidence" and "DNA says otherwise".
11.2.2010 | 10:55am
Butros Dahu says:
As a Palestinian Christian, I am greatly offended by yet another article supposedly talking about this massive persecution of Christians by “evil” Muslims and somehow the Jews of Israel are going to save us. I am from one of the original families of Ramallah and in Ramallah there are many Christians whose families lost their homes when Israel was founded. Apparently being Christian didn’t help them nor does it checkpoints from forming. Apparently Jews can be evil too, which lends further to evidence that a man’s actions and not his ethnicity will determine his integrity.
Many Arab Christians left the Middle East because there was money to be made in the West and they had connections through various churches which help them get to the West. My great-grandfather lived in Chicago in 1890 before returning to Ramallah. A prominent Quaker school still resides in Ramallah. My family actually hid a Muslim family from the neighboring town of Betunia when the Palestinians fought the British. Apparently, the British being Christians don’t mean we should freely give away our right to self-determination and governance. Instead of judging people according to their DNA, religion, or ethnicity, we should judge them according to actions and intentions. Jesus Christ had Simon Zelotas as one of his apostles. Simon was a Canaanite. Jesus also railed against Jewish leaders. Apparently, Jesus didn’t care about ethnicity but about character. That should be an example to the rest of us.
Also I’m as Arab as an American can call himself an American. People’s identities change over time. Arab Christians are not unique to this and it doesn’t change the fact that they are afforded the right and respect of others. Is there persecution? As much persecutions as there have been lynchings of blacks by whites, persecution of Mormons, terrible treatment of Catholics..etc. Minorities in general have faced a host of problems because fear those who are different. Arabs in Israel today are facing increasing rules that marginalizes them including threats of loyalty oaths and communities rejecting the right for them to buy houses in Jewish neighborhoods. Racism, prejudices, and bigotry don’t stop with Muslims. Also, the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Christians in Bethlehem is a myth. Most left for to make money elsewhere particularly South America. They are also known to travel back and forth between Bethlehem.
I wish people like the author would stop trying to politicize Arab Christians for his selfish gains. Rather than creating groups like Christian, Muslims, and Jews and acting if they are in wholly separate spheres, people should be trying to focus on similarities and finding common ground to live in peace. I fully believe that is what God wants.
Many Arab Christians left the Middle East because there was money to be made in the West and they had connections through various churches which help them get to the West. My great-grandfather lived in Chicago in 1890 before returning to Ramallah. A prominent Quaker school still resides in Ramallah. My family actually hid a Muslim family from the neighboring town of Betunia when the Palestinians fought the British. Apparently, the British being Christians don’t mean we should freely give away our right to self-determination and governance. Instead of judging people according to their DNA, religion, or ethnicity, we should judge them according to actions and intentions. Jesus Christ had Simon Zelotas as one of his apostles. Simon was a Canaanite. Jesus also railed against Jewish leaders. Apparently, Jesus didn’t care about ethnicity but about character. That should be an example to the rest of us.
Also I’m as Arab as an American can call himself an American. People’s identities change over time. Arab Christians are not unique to this and it doesn’t change the fact that they are afforded the right and respect of others. Is there persecution? As much persecutions as there have been lynchings of blacks by whites, persecution of Mormons, terrible treatment of Catholics..etc. Minorities in general have faced a host of problems because fear those who are different. Arabs in Israel today are facing increasing rules that marginalizes them including threats of loyalty oaths and communities rejecting the right for them to buy houses in Jewish neighborhoods. Racism, prejudices, and bigotry don’t stop with Muslims. Also, the persecution and ethnic cleansing of Christians in Bethlehem is a myth. Most left for to make money elsewhere particularly South America. They are also known to travel back and forth between Bethlehem.
I wish people like the author would stop trying to politicize Arab Christians for his selfish gains. Rather than creating groups like Christian, Muslims, and Jews and acting if they are in wholly separate spheres, people should be trying to focus on similarities and finding common ground to live in peace. I fully believe that is what God wants.
11.2.2010 | 1:58pm
Gil Costello says:
Butros Dahu -One can appreciate your parallelisms and your call for universal peace, but at some point we land back in the real world. After WWII, in a state of moral shock, Europeans and Americans certainly were convinced that anti-Semitism would never again raise its ugly head in politics, not to the point where it would be embraced by so many nations represented at the UN, while those who seemingly reject it remain silent about it, or openly argue that it doesn’t exist.
Leading Zionists after WWII, more familiar with the history or anti-Semitism, were skeptical about a universal rejection of anti-Semitism, and they were the odd men out for many years inside the universal embrace of “never again”. Now we can begin to appreciate what the Zionists were cognizant of, that an anti-Semitism that would call for the annihilation of Jews was not simply a Nazi phenomenon.
Theodor Herzl did not fight for a return to Israel: he fought for a safe place for Jews to live where they would not be faced with extinction by hostile anti-Semitic forces. Israel became that place (any other place, such as territory in Africa as Herzl considered, would have eventually proven to be an even deeper justification for anti-Semites to hate Jews) and the unfairness that always accompanies the founding of a state notwithstanding (Europeans who came to America did not have a long history of cultural/social/political presence here, so should we be bombed into oblivion?) it still remains the best hope for a safe haven for Jews, especially during these times of escalating anti-Semitism. It also puts the rest of the world on the spot, for the acknowledgement of the rampant desire to annihilate Israel more than anything will move the world to confront its anti-Semitism, including at the UN, and, as I alluded to earlier, if we confront our anti-Semitism at the deepest level we will confront our usurpation and hatred of God, the real cause of cyclical violence down through the ages.
It's interesting, isn't it? I mean, you call attention to slavery in America. Will it return? Will nation-states seek to bomb America into oblivion because of large populations of persons here who have slave ancestors struggling to restore their dignity and be safe from persecution in the future?
Yes, there is much we can criticize the Israeli government for, but every honest man and woman knows that the actions we would criticize have their origin in a defensive posture, Israel being threatened by a rampant anti-Semitism that is escalating among Palestinians and throughout the Middle East and in the rest of the world. How could any Jew now not believe that Israel first and foremost is the only sign of real security in a world hostile to Jews? I ask this question as a Catholic who has watched anti-Semitism grow in the three parishes I have belonged to the last 25 years, including a Cathedral.
Leading Zionists after WWII, more familiar with the history or anti-Semitism, were skeptical about a universal rejection of anti-Semitism, and they were the odd men out for many years inside the universal embrace of “never again”. Now we can begin to appreciate what the Zionists were cognizant of, that an anti-Semitism that would call for the annihilation of Jews was not simply a Nazi phenomenon.
Theodor Herzl did not fight for a return to Israel: he fought for a safe place for Jews to live where they would not be faced with extinction by hostile anti-Semitic forces. Israel became that place (any other place, such as territory in Africa as Herzl considered, would have eventually proven to be an even deeper justification for anti-Semites to hate Jews) and the unfairness that always accompanies the founding of a state notwithstanding (Europeans who came to America did not have a long history of cultural/social/political presence here, so should we be bombed into oblivion?) it still remains the best hope for a safe haven for Jews, especially during these times of escalating anti-Semitism. It also puts the rest of the world on the spot, for the acknowledgement of the rampant desire to annihilate Israel more than anything will move the world to confront its anti-Semitism, including at the UN, and, as I alluded to earlier, if we confront our anti-Semitism at the deepest level we will confront our usurpation and hatred of God, the real cause of cyclical violence down through the ages.
It's interesting, isn't it? I mean, you call attention to slavery in America. Will it return? Will nation-states seek to bomb America into oblivion because of large populations of persons here who have slave ancestors struggling to restore their dignity and be safe from persecution in the future?
Yes, there is much we can criticize the Israeli government for, but every honest man and woman knows that the actions we would criticize have their origin in a defensive posture, Israel being threatened by a rampant anti-Semitism that is escalating among Palestinians and throughout the Middle East and in the rest of the world. How could any Jew now not believe that Israel first and foremost is the only sign of real security in a world hostile to Jews? I ask this question as a Catholic who has watched anti-Semitism grow in the three parishes I have belonged to the last 25 years, including a Cathedral.
11.3.2010 | 1:57am
Krakow says:
Costello seems slippery, in a non athletic way.
“My point is that the problem is not Iran or the Palestinians, but anti-Semitism.”
“…but at some point we land back in the real world.”
I did not write that Iran or the Palestinians were a problem. In the real world, I asked who should negotiate first.
A. Iran
B. Palestinians
C. I don't no
D. Repeat the question
“My point is that the problem is not Iran or the Palestinians, but anti-Semitism.”
“…but at some point we land back in the real world.”
I did not write that Iran or the Palestinians were a problem. In the real world, I asked who should negotiate first.
A. Iran
B. Palestinians
C. I don't no
D. Repeat the question
11.3.2010 | 10:36am
Stephen Golay says:
"Fourteen centuries of operant conditioning is hard to throw off."
Well, now's the time for Orthodox/Greek Catholic Christians to do just that (a bit of Tea Party Time) before Christianity completely disappears from the Middle East - except for Hebrew speaking Christians, various Zionist Christian sects, and an evangelical church rising from shed Iranian blood.
In spite of Peter Kreeft's silly new book it's time to heed the call for a new crusade - this time asking a dhimmitude church to man up. We can no longer afford the nuanced delicacies of feeding off of a certain protected "status". How long must be burden our ears to the wails of a church that refuses to overthrow their islamic overlords. With the founding of modern Israel Jews have learned how to be Maccabeean about their interests - to push back dhimmitude from the very heart of the Middle East (if not the world). It's time for Christians to image Jews.
(Regarding Pete's new book see William Kilpatrick's current review in Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine. Now there's a right-thinking Catholic for you!)
NOTE TO MR K: I am conversant about evangelical converts into the Antiochian Church (in North America). How has that moderated its temptation to be swooned by the capitulations of islamo-Christianity? Show me that as they convert to Orthodoxy they are NOT also converting to anti-Zionism and some species of Replacement Theology?
TAG: The Temple Mount is God's Jewish footstep - let alone his boot - let it fall and stomp!
Well, now's the time for Orthodox/Greek Catholic Christians to do just that (a bit of Tea Party Time) before Christianity completely disappears from the Middle East - except for Hebrew speaking Christians, various Zionist Christian sects, and an evangelical church rising from shed Iranian blood.
In spite of Peter Kreeft's silly new book it's time to heed the call for a new crusade - this time asking a dhimmitude church to man up. We can no longer afford the nuanced delicacies of feeding off of a certain protected "status". How long must be burden our ears to the wails of a church that refuses to overthrow their islamic overlords. With the founding of modern Israel Jews have learned how to be Maccabeean about their interests - to push back dhimmitude from the very heart of the Middle East (if not the world). It's time for Christians to image Jews.
(Regarding Pete's new book see William Kilpatrick's current review in Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine. Now there's a right-thinking Catholic for you!)
NOTE TO MR K: I am conversant about evangelical converts into the Antiochian Church (in North America). How has that moderated its temptation to be swooned by the capitulations of islamo-Christianity? Show me that as they convert to Orthodoxy they are NOT also converting to anti-Zionism and some species of Replacement Theology?
TAG: The Temple Mount is God's Jewish footstep - let alone his boot - let it fall and stomp!
11.3.2010 | 12:45pm
Gil Costello says:
"I did not write that Iran or the Palestinians were a problem. In the real world, I asked who should negotiate first.
A. Iran
B. Palestinians
C. I don't no
D. Repeat the question "
Negotiations within an anti-Semitic mindset will not bear fruit. It's like feeding someone poison every day and discussing what kind of antidote we will try this time. The problem is a poison called anti-Semitism. Let's treat that, especially at the UN.
A. Iran
B. Palestinians
C. I don't no
D. Repeat the question "
Negotiations within an anti-Semitic mindset will not bear fruit. It's like feeding someone poison every day and discussing what kind of antidote we will try this time. The problem is a poison called anti-Semitism. Let's treat that, especially at the UN.
11.3.2010 | 1:02pm
Gil Costello says:
"In spite of Peter Kreeft's silly new book it's time to heed the call for a new crusade -"
The last thing we need in this world is a new crusade. What all people need to do - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone else - is to speak the truth in and out of season, and for all of us from every walk of life there is a God-given right to defend ourselves against violence, but not to impose it for our own idealistic or religious ends.
The last thing we need in this world is a new crusade. What all people need to do - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone else - is to speak the truth in and out of season, and for all of us from every walk of life there is a God-given right to defend ourselves against violence, but not to impose it for our own idealistic or religious ends.
11.3.2010 | 1:57pm
Krakow says:
Got it. As the self proclaimed leader of the "intelluctuals" allow me to state that I think that you are an intellectual. If that doesn’t offend you, nothing will.
11.3.2010 | 3:21pm
Gil Costello says:
Krakow - I take it as a compliment when you call me an intellectual, for it is my firm belief that intellectuals on the moral battle front will be the true heroes in the end (Solzhenitsyn comes to mind). "Intelluctuals" are those gifted with intellectual powers that could lead with moral vision, but instead succumb to egotism. I take up intellectual matters by default, not having great intellectual gifts. I see my role as inspiring intellectuals to be bold and speak the truth in and out of season.
11.3.2010 | 4:36pm
Krakow says:
Fine. You can have some small part in the script but we have no more room for impractical characters. We are trying to entertain people by solving a problem not put them to sleep by pretending to know something they don't.
11.3.2010 | 5:20pm
Gil Costello says:
Now that's a criticism I can embrace, that I fail to entertain.
11.4.2010 | 10:19am
Krakow says:
It is highly improbable that a beautiful mysterious woman in a black dress would show up to the funeral of an intellectual who fails to entertain. Nonetheless, I hope she does.
Thank you. I enjoyed this joust.
Thank you. I enjoyed this joust.
11.4.2010 | 2:48pm
Gil Costello says:
Krakow - Engagement like ours is what I was called to at a very young age. I stopped participating in school at age 9, became a street kid and a committed criminal at age 11, and at age 20 got 30 years in what Karl Menninger called the worst prison in America for conspiracy to commit bank robbery and homicide, obviously spending many years being addicted to arguing!, and was released at age 30 in 1977, and would eventually be blessed with a daughter and three grandchildren. God's mercy obviously has no limit.
I know my limits intellectually: you aren't the first to call my attention to it: I failed to publish any of my many stories and essays I've been writing for almost 40 years. Everyone can't be wrong!
In any case, I have worn out my welcome on FT's blog sites: I am aware that I'm long past my due date for departure, but will do that now.
Please understand that I have made no judgment of you. My closest friends on this earth, the ones I put my life on the line for, including African Americans and Jews, can be, with me, judged more harshly by human standards than you could ever be, and I do not judge them, including myself.
Peace be with you.
I know my limits intellectually: you aren't the first to call my attention to it: I failed to publish any of my many stories and essays I've been writing for almost 40 years. Everyone can't be wrong!
In any case, I have worn out my welcome on FT's blog sites: I am aware that I'm long past my due date for departure, but will do that now.
Please understand that I have made no judgment of you. My closest friends on this earth, the ones I put my life on the line for, including African Americans and Jews, can be, with me, judged more harshly by human standards than you could ever be, and I do not judge them, including myself.
Peace be with you.
11.4.2010 | 5:23pm
Krakow says:
How about if instead you and I blame this altercation on Goldman? Not that it is his fault but because he is used to being always blamed for something or other so what’s one more thing to him. You are colorful!!!! Well done. Stay in the game. See you back soon. Maybe one day we will run into each other at the UN and twist some arms. krakow.first.things@gmail.com
11.19.2010 | 10:58am
Catherine says:
The idea that the election of the Jews remains in force, Jesus notwithstanding, is not a "papal opinion". It is in St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, hence a matter of doctrine. Of course what that election implies for the modern state of Israel is not a matter of Catholic doctrine one way or the other - nor should it be.
3.17.2011 | 7:52pm
Cushwa Cinda says:
I am one more Melkite Catholic - with not, so far as I know, a drop of Arab blood - who finds Goldman's column offensive and riddled with ignorance about the Catholic Church. I don't agree with what Archbishop Cyril said, but it was hardly a statement from the church. Most of all i blame the Western powers. Who let Syria (and through it Iran) dominate Lebanese politics? And who let Islamists take power in Iraq under the cover of nation-building? And who promoted Tayyip Erdogan as a poster-boy for moderate Islam? The Bush as well as the Obama administrations, which for different reasons refused to confront Iranian influence in the region.
6.2.2011 | 2:19am
Sarah Back says:
Therefore, all those Middle Easterners who are Christian today, with very, very few exceptions, are the direct descendants of the Middle Eastern Christians of the 7th century. They are the remnant of a brilliant, dynamic civilization that has been systematically ground down for sixteen centuries, but which refuses to roll over and die. "Among the first congratulatory telegrams [Hitler] received were several from Arab capitals. Parties styled after the Nazis soon formed throughout the Arab world. One was Syria's Social Nationalist Party, whose leader, Anton Sa'da, called himself the 'Fuhrer of Syria'...Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath party recalls, 'We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books...
3.18.2012 | 12:11pm
DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES says:
"If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we ("jews" - the founders of communism) have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault."
- Dr Alan Zabrosky, Jewish former Director of Studies at the US Army War College
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
- Dr Alan Zabrosky, Jewish former Director of Studies at the US Army War College
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
Your concerns are understandable. But why do you call on the Pope to save you? Is Israel a fiefdom of the Vatican? No, it is an independent sovereign nation justified by God. It is strong, it is smart, and it can defend itself. Just like the Irish Catholics defended themselves over the course of 666 years of English oppression.
Satan tempted Jesus with temporal, political dominion, but God did not send his son to establish military supremacy. Fight honorably, yes, but if the battle cannot be won honorably, then it is better not won at all. The One who is the judge of all will set things right--that is not for us to enforce.