Suzy, you no doubt know that the People of Israel are “those who wrestle with God“. This event should be celebrated, rather than viewed as threatening.
Speaking not as a Catholic, I have been much more impressed with the theological writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. For my money, Pope Francis is committing the same errors found on the liberal side of the Protestant churches, largely emptying with all manner of rainbows on their websites. Desperate to fill their churches, some Roman Catholic leaders are turning their faith into a large book group. This has been the temptation across the Jewish and Christian faiths, and too many of my Jewish friends have forsaken belief in God while clinging to the notion that they are somehow still Jewish. Is that not just a tribal claim? One that our woke culture should probe and think about more clearly? This is not a litmus test on homosexuality, abortion or any belief upon which people of conscience might differ but about retaining a sense of humility that confesses that we do not know what we do not know.
It is good that you have reported on this gathering, and I am no fan of mob ravings, either at a Catholic conference or a Bruce Springsteen concert. They become a bit unhinged and expose the animal spirits that lie beneath our better selves. However, not one of us should look with derision at the questions posed by these groups. Only time, and history, will bear out the Truth. I, for one, find these movements to be much more intellectually challenging than the “I’m OK, you’re OK” pablum of our post- modern age.
Ask Sam Harris about a future without God. He will probably say it is the unshackling of humanity and send you a link to his meditation app. Because, after all, he and his friends have real knowledge. Just ask him.
I was a huge Sam fan, right until his Trump derangement syndrome made him nuts. His covid views are nuts. Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump, but it didn't make me go all nuts like it did him. I mean, he used to be all about "engage with all view points" to during covid favoring censorship and de-platforming. I mean, talk about a 180! He's really lost it.
You know, it's O.K. not to "hate Trump" (or anybody else). Part of the totalitarian "woke" psyop is the mass projection of hate and the "othering" (gleeful cancellation) of pretend boogie men. The trapped, manipulated and handled Biden, Feinstein Et al, deserve our concern and pity. Our legitimate anger and censure should be at those pulling the strings. Allowing personal compassion for ourselves might be a good first step in clearing our vision and the start of the healing we need.
Thank you for saying, “It’s ok not to ‘hate Trump.’” It’s like the last standing passcode amongst People Who Used To Vote D or something. But it is more than Ok not to hate Trump. It’s ok to love him as a president. I do. There, I said it!!
I had never heard of the guy, but I saw the interview where he said that he wouldn't care if Hunter Biden had bodies in his basement. He represents the True Woke Faith.
Agreed. I don't care what you believe if you are willing to engage openly with difference. He lost that ability, if indeed he every honestly had it. It may have always been simply a posture he found himself unable to maintain under pressure.
No, I understood. But I'm just saying living in CA is no excuse. Trust me, Boston is every bit as bad as CA. It's August 2023, and I STILL see lots of people masking, including young adults! Sam claims to be a free thinker, and living in CA is no excuse for losing your ability to think critically. He's just ... I dunno, a shell of his former self.
Maybe my husband saw something in Sam that I missed at the beginning. He could never stand Sam.
It is all good sport to attack the worst actions among believers. Harris does it, as did Hitchens. Some day, we will pull the lens back to wide-angle and remind ourselves that all human beings have worldviews and belief systems. By their fruits, we shall know them. In the space of time, a few thousand years is but a second.
Nazism was heavily buttressed by support among biologists in all the leading German universities, who were heavily invested both in Eugenics and ideas of racial hierarchy.
Does the use of science to support genocide then logically permit me to attack Science per se?If the whole is defined by the worst aspects of the parts, the answer is obviously yes. But unlike Harris, I understand that would be stupid.
Sam Harris is a master of straw man arguments. I think that has been clear in both his comments and your hypothetical. Science does not support genocide or eugenics, nor does it support keeping children home from school for a year or imperiling the lives of many poor and marginalized who rely on carbon energy to power their car, heat their home, and support their economy before we adopt truly "sustainable" strategies that displace carbon without brute force.
Sadly, our political moment will not countenance subtle argument like the one you have presented. So we keep our hands on each others' throats.
"The medical profession has wrestled with the significance of the Doctors Trial. For instance, to observe its 50th anniversary, the British Medical Journal printed a special issue (free downloads here). The lead article “War crimes and medical science” warned that the Nazi problems were “not unique to one place or time, and could happen here” and the trial “left us with a legacy we still shrink from confronting.” It pointed to contemporary problems in American medicine and warned “there will always be imperatives that threaten the professional values we profess to hold so dear” and “the profession of medicine carries within it the seeds of its own destruction.”
Well said, although I think conservative-leaning Catholics (myself among them) often fail to appreciate the importance of Pope Francis’ contributions to Church culture. They focus on and mischaracterize a handful of his remarks to the exclusion of his larger evangelization efforts which both conserve and expand upon Church tradition. People make mistakes when they approach Catholicism through the lense of the American political binary.
I believe the Catholic Church has abandoned its most sacred principles. Abortion used to be a deadly sin. Now it seems to be OK with the church. Why else would the Pope suck up to the ever senile Joe and the Wicked Bitch of the West Nancy Pelosi instead of excommunicating them for supporting abortion?
It is either a sin or it isn't. To me it is black and white, no wriggle room. If it is a mortal sin, excommunicate them. If it isn't suck up to the leaders of abortion and that is exactly what this Pope did.
Many priests witnessed the poverty in Latin America and became communists. I believe Francis, an Argentine, was influenced by this. I'm not calling him communist but he is an anti-capitalist and very left wing.
Even after he was a cardinal, he lived in the poorest section of Buenos Aires and caught the bus to work every day. This is admirable but it also had to influence his thinking.
And you? How go you feel about poverty? Like Jesus did? Or like the shallow selfish people at this conference who have forgotten the social justice part of Catholicism, which Jesus gave more shits about than he did abortion.
Hi, LP, you’re spot on. The Catholic Church is growing where it stays firm on the principles and teachings that the rest of the Christian world threw away and went with the flow of “the World.” It is growing *because* it stands firm on these principles, it stands on Jesus Christ where it stands on these principles and does not compromise with what “the World” throws away, does not understand, or finds inconvenient.
The problem is it is being led now by men with too much faith in “worldly wisdom.”
Our (faithful Catholics’) response basically is to know that nothing happens, even this, without God’s permission. So we watch and pray and work faithfully.
My pastor is a convert priest, a Yale Divinity grad former Episcopalian pastor who gave up a six-figure endowment for himself, wife, and three kids because the Catholic Church’s claim on history, teaching, steadfastness, was too compelling to ignore in good faith. He gave it all up to jump from the Thames to the Tiber, and walks the “life principles” walk too, with 11 kids now, as a Catholic priest. And he is not alone. Masses of intellectual Protestants pouring into a newly formed diocese called, in North America, the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. And these pastors are on fire. Knowledgeable, convicted, real. And our parish is booming, where mainstream Roman rite parishes are shriveling up cluelessly as the Bishop tries more and more gimmicks.
Intellectual Protestant Christians become Catholic Christians.
Ignorant (of their Catechism, history, teaching, Bible) Catholics…become protestant…or nones.
Jesus Christ came to be the Light of a verrrry dark and barbaric world.
He not only taught us to love each other, but He taught us that to love is Divine and we have a destiny to have a *relationship* with Love Himself.
Christianity experiences its fullness in the Catholic Church; Christianity itself is not merely a set of teachings or rules from a life guru but a relationship with God Himself that can go as deep as we allow it!
Polecat, should religion not make one's life better? Or should it hinder that life? Divorce is not recognized by the Church, but should one stay married simply because of that "rule"? Divorce is considered a serious offense, but should a Catholic stay married simply because of this rule? How does that help one? How does that help society?
Theresa, I am not a Catholic. In fact I am not religious at all. But if you are a member of a club with strict rules, you either follow those rules or you leave or get thrown out.
Theresa, the Church’s teachings on marriage are “hard” because Jesus Christ Himself taught it and one doesn’t claim to believe in and worship Him selectively…
But Jesus Christ also *knew* these teachings would be hard on us. The world was dark and barbaric without Him and little has changed under the sun. The same conditions of people apply which make marriage hard. Selfishness, lust, hardness of heart, sin. Jesus promised us, though that if we followed Him— *no matter how hard it got* — and He went all the way to Crucifixion— He would be with us and give us the Life we need.
There is so much more to living the Catholic faith…!
A great resource that’ll make you mad, then glad, is Fr. Chris Alar, and the Divine Mercy YouTube channel.
Please know I’m not judging you regarding marriage or your thoughts at all. I just want to make this clear. Thanks. Godspeed.
He still is alive today and still champions those marginalized… which would include alllll lives He created for a purpose which we have no moral right to make and then take…
I’m fine with it. It’s sad but it’s a woman’s prerogative until the baby is born. It’s her body. And I’m not changing the subject, because abortion is all these churchy people care about — not social justice. Live babies? Live mothers? Poor mothers? No concern. In fact, religion for them is now a way to divide, to separate the worthy from the unworthy. It’s snobbery, it’s pathetic and it’s un-Christian.
Aborting a fetus that is past 22 weeks is murder plain and simple. I cannot fathom anyone who thinks it is okay to abort past the very beginning of pregnancy. An 8, 9 month fetus can live very well outside the womb. That is murder and is disgusting and immoral. Give the baby up for adoption. AND BTW I AM PRO CHOICE WITH LIMITS. As an RN in the OR, I have been witness to many terminations.
Not true actually, Noah. I don’t think there are more adoptive parents and donors to crisis pregnancy centers than religious Christians. Do you? Thoug I’m sorry you’ve clearly had bad experiences with some Christians, that’s a pretty slanderous statement and mindlessly so.
But you seem to think abortion is a solution to poverty by this argument…
Lonesome, I have no real standing in this. I am not religious in any way. But in a weird way I think Francis might be practicing old fashioned marketing. (You know, like in capitalism).
By which I mean he’s reading the tea leaves in America. Abortion is not a constitutional right any more in this country, but regardless of how he personally feels about it, he realizes that the majority of American women support access to it in some way. If he wants more adherents to the Catholic Church, why not support the access to abortion to get some of them?
Because it isn't really the Catholic Church if it supports abortion. Kind of like if they start reading Dr. Seuss instead of Scripture, it isn't really the Catholic Church. Or if they begin to worship Rupaul, instead of God, it isn't really Catholic Church.
You can't read "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Catcher in the Rye", "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings", Harry Potter and I'm pretty sure the biblical Song of Solomon. The right wingnuts have banned them.
" Formal cooperation with abortion results in automatic excommunication. To my knowledge, Biden has not formally cooperated with abortion." You didn't look very far, did you?
Well said. And I think your conclusion "often underpinned by a pernicious form of hopelessness" is right. (I had to look up the definition of pernicious).
I am no stranger to hopelessness, and I have worked to leave it behind, which, for me, means being willing to put everything in God's hands, including relationships, worry, and the future.
I think I would be even more pointed than you, on reflection. I would say that these human judgements... are underpinned by hopelessness.
"Church catechesis in the US has long been abysmal . . ." following immediately after "[I]t presumes to know the hearts and minds of all Catholics . . ." is pretty rich. At least throw in an "I think", "it seems to me" or an "IMO" otherwise you are committing the exact offense you find objectionable.
He may be about Catholicism. That is not my religion so I won't opine. But my point was that he is doing what he is critical of others for doing. There is a lot of that on here of late about a wide variety of topics. That includes your "everybody knows it". That shows a complete disregard for those with differing perspectives.
As usual off topic. Watch this to the end if it doesn't jerk a tear out of you, you have no soul. This story renews my faith in humanity. Under crushing evil some good prevailed.
There are some of us that are good, even some Democrats.
I was raised a Catholic. It's not evil, and I'd be willing to bet the farm that an appreciable, if not majority, of Catholics want to keep abortion safe and legal. Many are afraid to speak up in public because it's such a polarizing issue and older Catholics, especially those of my mother's generation, are afraid of the clergy.
I'm not either. I argue that the Church has certain hard rules it claims to follow. If they impose these rules on the faithful but do not enforce them then they are hypocrites, hollow.
I am a completely lapsed Catholic. But even when I despised the Church I always admired that it did not cave to pressure to be fashionable. Pope Francis is a sellout in the same way the people running the ACLU are sellouts. He wants to be loved and popular and has abandoned the core tenents of the Church to achieve that.
It's so strange to hear someone speak about Pope Francis being a sellout. The Catholic Church is staggeringly behind the times. It needs to be revamped. It's becoming an archaic fossil and young people don't feel attached to it. Sure, there's comfort in ritual, but only if one grows up within its confines. - something becoming ever less popular. Who really believes that only men should be priests? Why? Because Jesus was a man? That's absurd in this day and age. What young person trusts a priest with their personal problems?
The church’s areas of growth are Africa and South and Central America. Being popular with westerners should not be a priority for the church. The next Pope should be from Africa.
> too many of my Jewish friends have forsaken belief in God while clinging to the notion that they are somehow still Jewish
This is quite common among Quakers, too. Many Quakers who attend meeting every Sunday - probably more than half of those who are under 40 - are atheist or agnostic.
Not sure what your point is but as someone who is Jewish I often pose the question to other Jews if they believe in God. It often leads to a very interesting conversation ( for those willing to engage). It also begs the question what makes something a religion, a question that can delve into lots of subquestons that I am more than happy to discuss
Michael, I, too, have posed those same questions, to Jews who no longer believe in God and to my growing number of friends who are searching for something surpassing belief. The conversations are interesting, to be sure. As I have grown older, belief is about how my belief shapes my life, relationships with others, and my relationship with the countless things for which our world has few satisfying answers. My comment was more an expression of sadness for, without the Jews' belief in God, I (and billions of other Abrahamic believers) would have no mooring. Nor, for that matter, would much of this world if counterfactuals are to be entertained. I like to think that you and I can differ on certain things relating to how we see God while still clinging to the hope that His revelation holds more hope in our shared human project. I worry about a world without Jewish believers, already a vanishingly small number globally, as much as I worry about the intramural squabbles in churches. My late wife was ever-confident that God can handle it, her faith unmoved unto death.
As a thought. Science has proven/reports that on the subatomic level particles know when they're being looked at and can actually change their behavior in response. The experience of consciousness requires a knower and a known. If it doesn't exist in consciousness for most practical purposes it doesn't exist. If the smallest particles of reality, are capable of knowing they're being tampered with, the universe is conscious and alive.
We are finite creatures who spring from, and exist in, what is for us, an eternity. The idea that we have no relationship with that, or that it has no effect on what it means to be a human being is madness. Most religion and societies have evolved out of an attempt to come to terms with that fact and create a meaningful relationship to that experience. The human moral reason born out of that attempt creates lines of demarcation that allow civilization, order and possibility. Beyond those: chaos, war and the re-education camp.
To say Jew, Christian, Buddhist or name any religion is to speak to the cultural, ritual and social orders grown from that attempt. The American Constitution begins with the acknowledged fact that all men (women, people, he, she, it) spring directly from an eternal transcendent living creator which informs the reality of their existence and within the bounds of human moral reason aren't to be fk'd with.
Ritual is the container for myth. Myth informs the human concerning his relationship with the forces at play within the transcendent eternal (or so says Mircea Eliade). Jews (I'm not one/with all respect) have survived the pogroms, slaughters and Auschwitz because their belief/connection to a "living God", cultural history and meaningful myth and ritual. These are not theory, but real forces. This is a new age.
Sure, all of that may be true. But isn't it arrogant and egotistical to think that, because some power we could never possibly understand may be running the universe it therefore means that power loves us, or hates us or even thinks about us at all anymore than we think about ants crawling around outside or that such a power ensures we live forever in a magical place when we die?
And I certainly don't want ANY religion saying it is the "true faith" on which all our laws should be based. At present, 40% of people do not identify with a specific faith and that number is growing. The church parking lot in my town used to be full on Sunday, now there's about a dozen or so cars and mostly elderly people going inside. Why should that be the basis of any kind of government?
I'm saying that the soul (psyche) exists. That there are moral lines of demarcation that define what it is to be a human being, violation of which bring only chaos and consequence. That it's possible and important to acknowledge, develop a relationship and participate with, the living force that informs the fact of our personal as well as our cultural/mythological/civilizational existence.
Jews who don't believe in God are Jewish. Their kids won't be Jewish if said Jews has children with a female non-Jew. There's an over 50% assimilation rate among reform Jews and Jews of no faith, while plenty of them are not having any kids at all. Orthodox Jews on the other hand tend to have over 4 kids and are growing at an exponential rate, and retain far more adherents to the faith, and will probably surpass Jewish non believers in the coming decades though right now only making up about 10-15% of Jews worldwide.
Wait so what does this have to do with the article?
I like the old black and white interview with C.G. Jung (on YouBoob) who, when ask'd if he believed in God said with a smile: "I don't believe, I know."
Ah the anti-Semitic trope.. Not relevant. He was simply pointing out that many Reform Temples are embracing the same empty leftist dogma as are many Protestant Churches, and now elements of the Catholic Church, itself. Many Conservative and Orthodox rabbis and congregants would wholly agree with him.
Orthodox, yes, but Conservative Temples where I live are struggling and have started to adopt some of the woke nonsense and “every cause but their own” attitude of the Reform movement.
Current Jersey Girl here. Same situation, but I was trying to keep my answer simple. I think the one Conservative synagogue in my town (vs. the four Orthodox ones plus multiple independent minyanim) is doing okay, but the rabbi chose to insert himself into a recent political situation, and surprise, surprise, took the leftist position.
Suzy writes: "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism. The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself."
"Probably???" Why the hell did Suzy feel the need to introduce this sort of snarky, back handed insinuation of anti-Semitism about a group of well meaning people who are trying to steer their church away from the leftist claptrap that masquerades as "religion" nowadays. My own local Episcopal church might as well be a DNC boot camp; it's just that leftist. I am increasingly bothered and annoyed by the elitist, urban snark that finds its way into the Free Press's writings about decent Americans from our Heartland trying to find meaning and social cohesion in these lunatic times. Just please stop and self-reflect.
Agreed. Vatican II was a vast and sweeping change; the disavowal of antisemitism, while courageous and wonderful, was only one component of it. And while there were surely dissidents at the time, most Catholics have lived quite happily for the last several decades with its changes. Vatican II is not what these people are protesting.
Bruce, I guess ‘probably’ in 21st century journalism isn’t the same probably that we grew up with. Probably is now an all encompassing term that increasingly means, well, probably nothing. Let’s see what Suzy could have come up with instead. She probably meant the following:
Definitely
Most Probably
Most Most Probably
For Sure
Absolutely
Absolutely Probably
(don’t say probably at all)
(looking for a better word that’s much stronger than probably but my journalism school thesaurus isn’t helping me)
Anyway, I think I’m probably drunk on my third beer, so I’ll give this up while I’m behind..
There sure are countless so-called "evangelical" churches to choose from. And they don't all follow the same Bible. As a result, each member is his own final authority, rendering the term "Bible-based" an often flimsy reed.
You are incorrect in your claim. They all have the same bible but find emphasis in the different themes. The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" anything else if just like home furnishings in a house. A picture here, a shelf of knick-knacks there, window coverings, etc. It is when they begin their focus on the extraneous that they run into trouble.
But isn't that the same as our various political parties and groups? Each claim that they are a representative democratic group, but they all seek to limit the power of each other.
You can't separate human nature from any movement or idea. It will always alter the outcome of whatever they propose because at heart they have all bought into self-interest.
> The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"
Do you mean just within the scope of evangelical churches? Because this is untrue of Christianity in general. Just on the subject of baptism, you'll have many different opinions.
Quakers do not baptize. They take Matthew 3:11 to mean that baptism with water is no longer necessary, and interpret baptism with the Holy Spirit to mean standing up and saying a teaching or encouraging word during meeting.
For another example, if you convert to (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity from Catholicism you must not be baptized (one saint wrote that re-baptism is the re-crucifixion of Christ). However, if you convert from Protestantism, you may need to be baptized, because you were not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. There's also debate about corrective baptism for those who were merely Christmated. (I am not an Orthodox, so I may have gotten some of that wrong).
She made all kinds of unnecessary judgement statements, mostly about politics, but she and Bari are "Jewish" and never let an opportunity go by without being overly sensitive to any perceived slight towards Jews. Of all the changes in Vatican II, which were MANY, she focused on one. "Antisemitism" is a euphemistic "cancel culture" slur used against anyone who dares to criticize anything or anyone Jewish, deserved or not, and especially when Jewishness was not even a part of the conversation. Their overt knee jerk is all over every article they write, as is their far-left politics. I usually skip over any article she or Bari writes, but as a former Catholic, I wanted to read this one. It's a great topic. Too bad she had to tinge her writing with her loathing for the Catholic church throughout the entire essay. Just pathetic.
Our local Episcopal Church now has a Cross of St. George Flag (formerly the flag of England - red cross on a white ground) flying above a rainbow flag with a triangle and rainbow stripes coming off of the triangle in the US. What in the world does that mean? Are they claiming it for England?
The Episcopal Church is sophisticated, a quality that this lapsed Catholic girl appreciates. Of course, they're not as cool as the Unitarian Church, who married me to the love of my life, a Jew.
It has become obligatory to mention that Vatican II disavowed antisemitism. It's just a way of smearing people who disagree with other major aspects of Vatican II as antisemitic lugs. I mean, if you don't like Vatican II, it's obvious that you want to go back to burning Jewish businesses after the yearly Passion Play, right?
There was a lot of good in Vatican II (including that) but it came at a time when people were letting down their hair (literally). The 60s were a turbulent era and the church seemed to relax so many beautiful traditions to keep up with the times.
Fun fact about Vatican II: Gregorian Chant, in Latin, was actually promoted by V2 as the ideal mode for mass propers. It died off however, due to a 10 year gap during which no one had updated the chant books to conform to the Novus Ordo. So by the time parish priests had access to a tool kit to even use Gregorian Chant again, alternative musical forms had taken root. Time to bring it back!
I have a friend that had her entire wedding mass in Gregorian Chant in 2012. I am not a Catholic, and that was the first Catholic ceremony I ever saw, so it made no sense to me. Was pretty, though.
It was so disconnected, I actually thought for a second that’s how she was ending the article. I had to scroll down on my phone to look for more text and as I continued, I thought, “Ugh, that was weird?” But all comments re: the tenor/tone of this piece are well taken. The FP is small “l” liberal until it’s kind of not.
“Christ killers”. Remember how many condemned Mel Gibson for promoting that concept in his film? He was simply portraying what’s written in the gospels which called out both church leadership and the Romans who were really representatives of mankind in general. The point is......we all are responsible for killing Christ out of our own sin. It’s why Christ came. It’s how we’ve been given the opportunity for reconciliation to God himself. The Jews, God’s chosen and the Romans get wrongly accused out of ignorance. But personally knowing some wonderful Jewish people they do confide a real concern for the current wave of anti-semitism in the world. Weiss is only expressing that concern. Get a clue. Give her a break.
It is right that Mel Gibson was condemned for portraying Jews as "Christ killers." Gibson has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, before and after the film was made. Gibson is not a fine human.
If you want the trad Catholics to become anti-Semitic, keep telling the world they are anti-Semitic. People often get tricked into defending what they are accused of, if the accusation is spread broadly and deep by the culture.
Like after being called a racist(all white people are racists, systemic racism is the bedrock of America, white supremacists lurk everywhere) so many times that I fear I have become more of a racist?
It tends to happen when you get attacked constantly. I was a moderate classical liberal going into graduate school, but I ended up further right than I was comfortable with by the end, simply as a result of the constant pressure. If one good thing came from the Iraq War for me, it was that it pushed me back to where I started and made me realize that I could not be a Republican.
Please do not get caught in the label trap. What it means to be Republican or Democrat evolves. It is evolving mightily at this particular point in time. Those who do not keep up cast their ballot for things they do not support.
Jan 6th made me leave the GOP. In my state you can’t vote in primaries unless registered as a party member, so I switched to Dem to do the same thing as when I was GOP, ie, vote for the most sane and least crazy person in the primary as an effort to keep the loonies out of office.
I think the Biden Justice Department is pushing me to register as an R. Trump and Garland each give us one part of a despotism: refusal to transfer power and political prosecutions.
I don’t quite follow the line that the about anti-semitism being acceptable before Vatican 2.
For one, just because the church didn’t expressly condemn it, didn’t mean it condoned it. I think would require a longer and more in depth argument. And for two, that doesn’t mean that these people are anti-Semitic. Again, much more evidence would need to be shown. From my understanding of this group, that is not even on their radar.
The line, frankly, seems like a snide aside and a tip of the hand from the neutral journalist position. It seems meant to condemn a group for at anti-semitism without proving it exists.
I'm glad not to be the only one that calls out Suzy for that sort of pseudo-"journalism" that injects personal prejudices into articles in a really annoying and, frankly, transparently juvenile way.
I wonder if she feels obligated to mention it—tosses it like a bone—to avoid flack from the anti-Christian left for failing to mention one of their "proofs" that devout people are actually just bigots who use religion to cloak their hate...?
The church was extremely antisemitic for most of its existence, if not as a matter of canon policy, then of general European antisemitism. The Spanish Inquisition was but one of the more horrifying examples.
However, any organization is made up of individuals, and there are always those who are decent and compassionate people who oppose the evil humans inflict on other humans.
But I do agree that the references were out of place and detracted from the article. The general tone was one of sneering condescension. I normally love Suzy’s articles, but this one was a fail.
The Spanish Inquisition targeted heretics, not Jews, unless they were "conversos" who secretly practiced Judaism while pretending to be Catholic. Not saying things were great then, but Jews who did not convert were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
Jews absolutely were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition. Read the secular history books that don’t have an axe to grind. And I’m a Catholic saying that.
That might lead someone to think that Jews who did not choose to convert were then left alone to practice their religion freely...which was absolutely NOT the case.
Yes her comment was gratuitous and misplaced. Of course some Jews wanted Jesus dead. And they got their way. But most did not. So, Catholicism has never been anti-semitic, per se; only some members (much like some Jews are / were anti-Christian). It was a remark showing likely her failure to grasp Christianity and its history, mostly good but sometimes bad.
Catholics were all over the place during WWII with some supporting and some opposed to the Nazi's. Hitler was raised Catholic but left the church. Some priests fought for their religion bravely and were executed, others simply looked the other way.
Frankly, it was the same in the USA. We were taught in history class that we were the glorious saviors of the world in WW II but boatloads of Jews were sent back to Germany and certain death before we entered the war.
As our society continues to splinter into left and right and people sort themselves into neighborhoods with like-minded people, there's no reason to think the same won't happen with religion. Am betting in 20 years there will be "Conservative Catholics" and "Reform Catholics"
I am a Catholic and a traditionally conservative pro-life Republican, and the assertion that one cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat is inimical to authentic Catholic teaching. Instead, is true that it would be a sin for a Catholic to vote or be a member of any party for the wrong reasons, such as a belief that abortions are morally neutral and legal and paid for by taxpayers. It is also true that too many priests have been scandalously timid about teaching the moral precepts of our faith, but some of the priests covered in this article seem to be embarrassingly poorly catechized.
Ah, the FBI should do its work while it can....it is widely reported that when The Orange Man is elected (again) for his third term, his first move will be to take away the FBI's guns - removing their police powers and the power to arrest - giving them only the power to INVESTIGATE - you know, as in the Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can't wait.
I mean he definitely won’t get elected but taking away their guns is smart. I actually just listened to a detailed explanation of how this would work and it’s a great idea.
In short, it makes the FBI reliant on local law enforcement which helps when they want to raid the homes of pro-life people, for example. The Sheriff can just tell them to F off.
The government investigates after the fact. The FBI was informed that some foreign guys were taking flying lessons but weren't interested in take-offs or landings. The FBI didn't think much of the information. Until September 12th.
Passed by the Senate 98 to 1. That’s what happens when emotion, impotence, fury, indignation and anger combine to favour protection over personal freedoms.
Way too much attention is paid to the structure of a church, any church, vs. the message of Jesus Christ. The structure of a church is man made and imperfect. Humans screw things up, we are so good at that. So just focus on Jesus and his messages. It is really remarkable that this God-made-man entered the middle east at a time when savagery, idol worship, and burnt offerings were the norm. He dismissed the 600+ laws of the Jews and distilled it down to one---Love God, Love you neighbor as yourself. No more angry, vengeful God of the Jews. Now God loved us so much, he humiliated himself and died for our sins. So pay no attention to the Pope or any other religious leader who doesn’t spend 100% of his time on Jesus’ teachings.
The great sage Hillel was asked by a gentile if he could teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot. “Do not to your neighbor that which is hateful to you. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; now go and learn.”
Hillel lived a generation before Jesus.
Viewing “the God of the Old Testament” as angry and vengeful based on a superficial reading of the text blithely dismisses the entire religion of Judaism, one of the few religions that has survived for millennia, despite near-perennial persecution. Do you think if Jews saw their god as nothing but a vindictive psychopath, they would have willingly been burned at the stake rather than renounce their faith? Do you think modern observant Jews would choose a lifestyle that entails a great deal of discipline and sacrifice--not to mention expense and inconvenience --for such a deity?
Perhaps there’s a bit more to the “God of the Old Testament” than you think.
I would even say Old Testament is rather offensive, if you actually understand and know something about Jews. It’s called the Hebrew Bible. There’s nothing “old” about it.
Oh come now. I live in Jerusalem. There's plenty of 'eye for an eye' theology put into practice around here. The Jews in Israel LOVE that God is both vengeful and on their side. It makes them feel invincible.
Maureen: If you want to see someone living the teachings of Jesus - take a look at a video by Peter Santenello called The Man with no Legal Identity - from the comments following the video, I think we all fell in love with young Titus - it is rare that you find anyone who doesn't preach or argue about "religion" but just goes about living the life. He wants to get married and have kids but few could live totally off the grid as he does - and I am far too old and off the grid adverse to qualify but am hoping he finds just the right woman.
By the way Peter has some really great videos I would recommend. He did one on life in Appalachia where I lived many years ago and also several on life at the border.
You mean, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”?
I think Jesus was saying, Pay less attention to how blood is to be splashed on an altar and more on loving your neighbor.
The psyche holds its own dimensionality, reality and life. Looking beyond the symbol representing the myth, and attempting to experience the living forces informing the fact of the reality it try's to convey, allows the dogmatic road signs pointing the way to become guideposts to the transformative meaningful experiential.
Maureen, please don’t read into my question anything other than a genuine interest in how to interpret a part of Scripture (and there are a few others) where Jesus seems to be saying “Don’t misunderstand me - I’m not striking Judaism, I’m building upon it.”
No one can show where Jesus then meticulously reinforces each of the Mosaic laws because he didn’t need to - can you imagine Jesus following up the whole “not one letter” clarity by then itemizing every part of Mosaic Law just to make sure he was clear? The larger picture seems clear: What the whole of Scripture suggests is that the Old Testament prefigures the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old (especially Isaiah). It seems clear that when Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees and Sadducees, he wasn’t throwing out the Law, he was telling them they’d lost their way by obsessing too much on those rules themselves - and lording it over the people like dictators (and of course he would then completely refute the Sadducees’ beliefs about bodily resurrection).
We may be saying the same thing actually, but I was curious how that Matthew 5:17-20 could be interpreted to mean that Jesus threw out the Law and replaced it *only* with love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He’s pretty clearly saying to the Jews “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 says:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I see him saying, these are the most important, and everything has to flow from this. I don’t think he’s totally throwing out the Law and religious practices of the Jewish people. He’s saying that if the Law and the rules don’t flow from that, we’re missing the point of them.
Yes, thank you. As I posted below to someone else, there is a passage in Mark where Jesus rebuffed the Pharisees about their food prohibitions, saying no food was unclean. Wouldn’t you say that he refutes Deut 14 where food after food is declared unclean for Jews? It seems that he was saying, stop focusing on your man made rules so much and pay attention to what’s really important—he quotes honoring your father and mother for example.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
So show me where Jesus asked for burnt offerings and blood to be splashed on altars? The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus because he upended their order. He taught something new. The Law was about something much bigger than not eating pork and 600 other rules.
Jesus challenged the Pharisees on the laws related to eating.
“…their teachings are merely human rules.”
He goes on to challenge the Mosaic laws related to unclean food, saying, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?..”
So Jesus declared all foods clean. I think that is at odds with Deu 14.
"There are pictures of singer Sam Smith dressed as a devil, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney clutching a Bud Light can, and Drag Queen Story Hour at a public library." - Yes, there are "pictures" because these things have occurred and are occurring in a culture that wants to cast off any resemblance to a Christian nation. What's interesting to me is when you ask what does a country look like that embraces the opposite of "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not lie"? Is that a place where any sane person wishes to live? Christian activism has increased because the liberal left extremists turned up the temperature in the room to normalize ONLY their opinions and lifestyles. What is the percentage of men that like to cross-dress as women in their daily lives? A simple Google search produces 1.5 percent. So, the Catholic Church must change their entire religious order for 1.5 percent of a group of people? That actually sounds extremist to me.
"The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself." - What an odd thing to insert into this article. It seems to imply that there is a baseline anti-Semitic tone to this whole conference and its attendees. Most Catholics (including me) who are frustrated with the modern Church are just looking to limit the number of guitars and drum sets that are played during the mass, because it's really annoying. I promise we aren't anti-Semitic!
It not only seemed to imply, but I read it loud and clear. Was very unfortunate and Suzy would do well to reflect on her world view and own prejudices.
I just want to know if Suzy really thinks Catholics want a Latin mass??? LOL. I have never rolled by eyes more at her writing. It took half a day to read this one when I saw the by line.
A local parish does a Latin mass on the first Sunday of the month, and it's nice. Not the full 2 hours long mass, they shorten it significantly to fit it in under an hour, but it's nice to go to for a change and experience something different.
We have a church in our town that has the Latin Mass. It’s a rogue parish. A lot of cities have them. There’s an entire movement of people who hate Vatican 2 and want to return the before times. It’s not a huge number and certainly not the majority (or even close) of Catholics, but they’re more of them than you would think.
I can't imagine drums in a Catholic mass. They fit with some other denominations. I've played drums in several churches and quit most of them because the music was boring. My favorite experience was one Father's Day when the pastor walked onto the platform, plugged his lap steel into a Fender Twin amp, turned it up to 10, played Onward Christian Soldiers, ala Jimi Hendrix, and afterward stood up and said to the men; "Get a job!" Turned and walked off the platform. Best sermon ever.
Hey, don't complain about drums! An evangelical church that I visited had a SMOKE MACHINE to accompany the band, along with oscillating lights that swept the congregation!
According to the dogma of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is infallible. In religion, dogmas are dogmas. There have been schisms since the beginning of Christianity and today everybody is free to go and establish their own church, as opposed to the good days of yore when heretics god killed en masse and in impressive fashions by the orthodox believers (of course, both sides since the beginning of history have held to be the one true believers).
But these priests suffer from the very main sin of the wokery they abhor: they pretend to victimhood where none is to be found. Their problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be acknowledged as being right by a church whose hierarchy they despise and whose edicts they refuse to recognise.
The Pope is only infallible within very strict limits; I think that there have only been two times in history that infallible pronouncements were made.
The Pope is only infallible hen it comes to declaring things regarding Faith and Morals. There is a continuity passed down through the centuries starting with the Apostles regarding our faith and what is moral behavior. This is called the ordinary Magisterium ( teachings of the Church) and Catholics should feel obliged to accept them
You are correct Heide- there were 2 times that Popes have declared formally an infallible teaching, both having to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her Immaculate conception- that she was conceived without sin, and the second, that she was assumed into heaven after her death.
Regarding this article- it is hard for all of us to be obedient to anyone. These priests did take a vow of obedience to their Bishop and the Church(led by the Pope. They would do well to practice the virtue of Humility.
That being said- Pope Francis has done (and said)some troubling things, but he is the legitimate Pope and we must pray for him. God is ultimately in charge.
There is a good book, Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid that talks about the papacy through history. Maybe a longer answer than you needed!
Exactly--non-Catholics hear of papal infallibility and think it applies to everything a pope says. (And thank you for including the correct definition of the much misunderstood immaculate conception.)
People thinking "immaculate conception" refers to Jesus being conceived by a virgin drives me absolutely NUTS. Even more nuts than when people say "vagina" when they mean "vulva," and when people think there's an apostrophe in "Howards End."
Too funny- I was at the Vatican museum and we can to a painting depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation and our tour guide described it as the Immaculate Conception. When I explained his error- he looked at me like I was an idiot 🙄. In his defense- he was an art major not a theology student😂
Incidentally, if that was referred to me, I am non-Catholic and not Christian and an Agnostic by choice, but not by education.
But I made a broad statement worthy of being picked at, and it was worthily picked at. Hopefully I managed to detail it better.
And unfortunately a vast number of Catholics make that same mistake about the Immaculate Conception. For a very large number of people the complexities of dogmas are too much to deal with and always have been -- most of the work of the medieval Church was done striving to correct (often with physical eradication) the misinterpretation of some tenet of doctrine. Heresies of ignorance are much more common than heresies of the reasoned intellect.
Historically, many popes clearly lived nonbiblical lives and failed. That dictum of infallibility is not biblical and is a man made control edict. The real doctrine should read that the pope has final say on any conflicts in the church that cannot be reconciled at lower levels or through critical read of scripture. There are areas where scripture are conflicting or not explicitly clear in regard to how we worship.
Sorry for not having specified further, simplifications always cause misunderstanding.
Yes, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope (which exists only since 1870) only applies as such when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and 'mores', which means customs/usages/habits, even if we tend to translate it with morals, and includes a much larger sphere than what we usually put under 'morals'. The Vatican Council (each and every one of them) is infallible in its edicts.
The edicts, both of the Pope and the Council and descended through the hierarchy, are what matters, the dogmas established and the decisions taken according to canonic law. The Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and obedience to the dictates of the hierarchy has always been one of its major tenets.
While there has always been plenty of disagreements (for church/ecclesia means community, and community is made of people), rebelling against one's superiors in the hierarchy (and their decree) is for a Catholic to put oneself outside of the Church.
Strictly in a matter of law, to deny the authority of the Pope, the validity of his magisterium, or the authority and validity of the Councils, the hierarchy, and the decrees that descend from these institutions, is to put oneself outside of the Catholic Church.
And it is not just the denial of Papal authority when speaking ex cathedra that falls into this category. The Constitution Pastor Aeternum is clear, even if the passage (at the end of Chapter 3) is constantly carefully abridged out in English translations:
Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.
If then someone should say that the Roman Pontiff only has an office of inspection or direction, but not also the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and customs, but also in matters pertaining broadly to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; or that he should have only the greater parts, but not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, either over each and every community, or over each and every pastor and faithful; be this anathema.
To insult the Pope and to declare the Pope to be an heretic should be anathema to a Catholic and especially to an ordained minister. One can disagree with decrees and directives but must obey them until they are declared invalid or lifted by the proper authority. Unorthodox clerics and theologians have been silenced and suspended a divinis by ecclesiastical authorities for two thousand years: it is not a particularly 'woke' practice. It is how the Catholic Church works -- only when unorthodox positions become widespread enough they seep into the hierarchy and then become orthodoxy. In the meanwhile, the minority positions are held to respect and obedience.
I just find the position of these priests and their followers extremely ridiculous besides distasteful -- and mightily 'woke' in the demands of a fringe minority to rule the majority. Why do they stay in a Church which they seem to despise so much?
There is a very long history of Catholics disagreeing with the Pope while worshipping his Office at the same time.
I grew up Catholic and even attended Catholic high school, but I fell from grace when I realized that I just couldn't live up to the Church's ideas of "mortal" sin, for which THIS teenager was subject to. Use your imagination here.
What truly turned me away was when while in confession the priest intoned, "When is this going to stop?" I was speechless and humiliated. He then followed up with "Do you know what would happen to you if you died right now?" I responded with "I guess I'd go to hell", to which he confirmed, "That's right! You'd go straight to hell!". Now THERE is the mercy that Jesus spoke of! (Sarcasm, if you missed it.)
I never returned, but I DID find mercy in the Jesus of the bible a couple of years later when a street preacher button-holed me one day at college and introduced me to salvation by grace. I couldn't help but violate church "laws" but discovered that God is only interested in a humble and contrite heart, and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. God does not change human nature, but He DOES give us a path to follow that SHOULD lead us to a better life.
You can disagree on doctrine, but you cannot tell me, or anyone, for that matter, that their experience is wrong and that they believe a myth.
And before any of the devout try to tell me that this particular priest was not representative, I must say, CORRECT! It was years later that I met priests who could have helped me because they KNEW the Jesus of the Bible and endeavored to live like it.
Kat Timpf's book "You Can't Joke About That" contains a very similar (and very amusing) account of why she left the Catholic Church. You describe how uncomfortable you felt having to confess your "mortal sins" multiple times to an unsympathetic priest. Imagine a young girl going through the same experience, with a trip to hell supposedly awaiting her if she died before confessing her latest "transgression".
While these people could branch off and form their own church. What's wrong with wanting to or at least trying to "right the ship" in the church they grew up in? First choice should be to reconcile the Catholic church with it's historical teachings and beliefs. Last resort should be to form a new denomination.
Tony, the Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy. Change from the bottom up is just not possible except in extreme situations. These priests know this to be true, and some of them were disciplined for matters of conscience, NOT for violating official Church doctrine.
If you’re worried about incipient anti semitism in the Catholic Church you’re not going to find it. There have always been and always will be Catholics who blame Jews for Christ’s death. They are a small minority and that percentage has decreased in the past 40 years. If you’re Jewish and think you have something to fear from conservative Catholicism you are ignorant of the facts.
The Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate. They refused his offer to release him. But all this was necessary to fulfill Jesus’ fate. So I don’t think Christians blame Jews for doing what was foreordained.
I find myself troubled by the "Jews handed over Jesus" line. Jews were equally Jesus's followers. Most of the people in Jerusalem at the time were Jews. The libel of an entire people for the act of a few has never sat well with me.
The gospels were written when Rome was still the ruling power of the world. Who would you rather piss off--the Romans, or a bunch of politically powerless Jews?
The Jewish leaders killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Jesus killed Jesus, in the sense that “No one takes my life from me….”
But above all, I killed Jesus.
I often think of Mel Gibson, who has at times lapsed into antisemitism (and repented), but insisted on filming his own hands pounding in the nails for “Passion of the Christ.”
Would it be better if I had written, “People who were Jewish handed Jesus over?
See Matthew 26, Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:20, “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.”
Does this indict all Jews forever? Of course not. The apostles were Jews, so was Paul.
Should all Catholic priests be indicted for the acts of a few bad ones?
No Christian I have ever known hold malice against Jews. Quite the opposite.
I spent three years in seminary being steeped in our Judeo=Christian history and it was very clearly stated that the Romans killed not only Jesus - remember this was before Christianity claimed him - but also the many other "prophets" who roamed the Galilee in those days. It takes a lot of study, convesation, open mindedness and the desire to see things through the lenses of those who wrote and lived the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and not through 21st century eyes to understand what the stories told through thousands of years meant.to the original hearers. It is a fasinating study - the sadness is, we spend so much time arguing rather than understanding.
My sister had a Catholic friend who told her we were going to hell because we have a Jewish parent. And a Jewish friend of mine was bullied by some sort of Christian (as far as she could tell) who called her "Christ killer." I'm glad you haven't met any of the sort, but they are out there.
I have a Jewish friend who lived in Texas; growing up she was taunted for her background. A woman, approximately the same age, was bullied in NYC for being Jewish - stones were thrown at her.
Most do not blame the Jews today, but they definitely did blame them for centuries after Christ’s death. I didn’t realize how pervasive this belief was until I took a course in antisemitism, where I read a lot about the history of antisemitism. While this belief continued to be held over time, the Catholic Church was also doing things like condemning Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. There were a lot of insane things being believed that hurt a lot of people. Christians believed in witches and burned them alive, but they never believed Jews killed Christ? Think about that.
"Some" Jews handed Christ over to the Romans. Opinion-especially religious opinion and ritual- is so varied it is impossible to shoehorn it into a one size fits all acceptability for everyone. Popular argument about the existence of an historical Jesus is a good example. The point is, that like today with the sudden jump in tech and communication, there was a leap in consciousness that transformed civilization. Something happened, about which, we can draw any conclusion we wish, but the fact remains that, whatever it was, is so powerful it continues to inform the fact of Western Civilization and our lives today. This article, like most we discuss here, is an example, as with the Christ, of what happens when the living transformative powers of the human psyche (the Soul) find themselves in conflict with political power, ambition and gold. God is not dead. Nor are we. The fight and the disease, as accurately diagnosed by many, is the split in the human psyche created by the sterility of a scientific reason that would turn mankind into robots (AI) vs. the realtime connection and access to the living eternal and meaningful religious experience that actually evolves the definition of what the term human being means. The chasm is real. As is the Psyche.
The 20th Century produced the ideological utopianism (nazi/fascist/communist) that hurled millions into the death camp mass psychosis that unleashed the hubristic malignant narcissism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin. Like the corrupt Pharisees confronted by the newly emergent powerful dynamic of Jesus teachings, the DNC/CCP/EU Davos central banking hog boys find themselves standing in the light of a suddenly expanding world consciousness that clearly sees them for the grifters they are. Hence the LIE they represent, "canceled Priests", and the assault on free speech and the looted economies and destruction they leave wherever they go. And, that you are a deplorable "thing" unworthy of the freedom to which you aspire.
Do we as a people believe, that human beings -possess/are possessed by- an eternal Soul? That the dead who inhabit our common history, despite the times they lived in, and the flaws that possessed them, struggled toward the light and hoped for a better world? Do we believe our common myth, that "all men are created equal", and are "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"?
Light a candle. Sit quietly in the darkness. Talk to the Soul within you. Remember who you are.
These people were not canceled in the Kingdom of God, they were relieved of their duties in the Catholic Church. Not for ignoring God but for not following the rules of the Catholic Church and edicts of the Pope, They have the opportunity to start a new Church and instead of funding the Canon lawyers they could be starting the new Church.
Africa is the continent with the fastest growing Catholic population. The number of Catholics in Africa is projected to increase by 146% from 2004 to 2050. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including high birth rates, conversion from other religions, and immigration from other parts of the world.
Asia is another continent with a rapidly growing Catholic population. The number of Catholics in Asia is projected to increase by 63% from 2004 to 2050. This growth is being driven by high birth rates, conversion from other religions, and economic development.
Look at the pictures. These people are not looking to the future of the Chruch, they are lamenting of "how it used to be". Once again it is the minority trying to force themselves on the majority. Victims of their own greed.
Reading this, my mind went to Paul telling us how to behave toward our brothers. For example, “As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
Colossians 3:12-17 NRSV
Suzi did not report much in the way of, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.
“...which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism.” This is disingenuous reporting. How does this better inform the reader? You are poisoning the well. I expect reporting of this caliber from Fox and CNN. This implication is egregious and disgusting, to imply that traditionalists would in any way have a soft stance on antisemitism is garbage. A call to tradition is not by necessity a call to backwards thinking.
The authors throw away line linking opposition to Vatican II with support for anti-Semitism is disingenuous at best. "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism."
The proceedings of Vatican II lasted for two months, hundreds of scholars and church leaders were involved. 16 Decrees containing hundreds of paragraphs were promulgated by Vatican II, one of which (Declaration 7) addressed the issue of anti-Semitism in four places, the same Decree also mentions Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists where we (Catholics) are told that these other faiths teach "a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.as faiths" .
I am not interested in downplaying the importance of the public declaration by the church that anti-Semitism is wrong but the author leaves the impression (purposefully in my opinion) that opposition to the wide ranging changes to the church ushered in by Vatican II is a mark of anti-Semitism. Like the culture wars today in which opposition to transgender surgery for minors turns one into a homophobe, opposition to the many interpretations of the decrees that many Catholics feel went beyond their original intent is used as a cudgel to silence opponents of some of the more radical reforms in doctrine and practice of the church.
Suzy, you no doubt know that the People of Israel are “those who wrestle with God“. This event should be celebrated, rather than viewed as threatening.
Speaking not as a Catholic, I have been much more impressed with the theological writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. For my money, Pope Francis is committing the same errors found on the liberal side of the Protestant churches, largely emptying with all manner of rainbows on their websites. Desperate to fill their churches, some Roman Catholic leaders are turning their faith into a large book group. This has been the temptation across the Jewish and Christian faiths, and too many of my Jewish friends have forsaken belief in God while clinging to the notion that they are somehow still Jewish. Is that not just a tribal claim? One that our woke culture should probe and think about more clearly? This is not a litmus test on homosexuality, abortion or any belief upon which people of conscience might differ but about retaining a sense of humility that confesses that we do not know what we do not know.
It is good that you have reported on this gathering, and I am no fan of mob ravings, either at a Catholic conference or a Bruce Springsteen concert. They become a bit unhinged and expose the animal spirits that lie beneath our better selves. However, not one of us should look with derision at the questions posed by these groups. Only time, and history, will bear out the Truth. I, for one, find these movements to be much more intellectually challenging than the “I’m OK, you’re OK” pablum of our post- modern age.
Ask Sam Harris about a future without God. He will probably say it is the unshackling of humanity and send you a link to his meditation app. Because, after all, he and his friends have real knowledge. Just ask him.
“Because, after all, he and his friends have real knowledge. Just ask him.”
———————————————
Actually it’s a higher knowledge. A gnosis, if you will.
I’m kidding. They are just run-of-the-mill megalomaniacs.
I had some respect for Sam Harris for a time. But he lost me quite a while ago. He appears emotionally stable, but he isn't.
I was a huge Sam fan, right until his Trump derangement syndrome made him nuts. His covid views are nuts. Don't get me wrong, I hate Trump, but it didn't make me go all nuts like it did him. I mean, he used to be all about "engage with all view points" to during covid favoring censorship and de-platforming. I mean, talk about a 180! He's really lost it.
You know, it's O.K. not to "hate Trump" (or anybody else). Part of the totalitarian "woke" psyop is the mass projection of hate and the "othering" (gleeful cancellation) of pretend boogie men. The trapped, manipulated and handled Biden, Feinstein Et al, deserve our concern and pity. Our legitimate anger and censure should be at those pulling the strings. Allowing personal compassion for ourselves might be a good first step in clearing our vision and the start of the healing we need.
Thank you for saying, “It’s ok not to ‘hate Trump.’” It’s like the last standing passcode amongst People Who Used To Vote D or something. But it is more than Ok not to hate Trump. It’s ok to love him as a president. I do. There, I said it!!
I had never heard of the guy, but I saw the interview where he said that he wouldn't care if Hunter Biden had bodies in his basement. He represents the True Woke Faith.
Agreed. I don't care what you believe if you are willing to engage openly with difference. He lost that ability, if indeed he every honestly had it. It may have always been simply a posture he found himself unable to maintain under pressure.
I think he got lost in an echo chamber and hasn't been able to find his way out.
aren't those called "ECO-chambers", now"? :-)
Lol--good one.
The thought patterns you describe could be attributable to socio-geographical influence.
perhaps, but I'm from Boston, and did not succumb to the group think here.
Oh, you thought I was referring to you? I was referring to Sam Harris living in CA and having a uniquely Californian filter of the world.
No, I understood. But I'm just saying living in CA is no excuse. Trust me, Boston is every bit as bad as CA. It's August 2023, and I STILL see lots of people masking, including young adults! Sam claims to be a free thinker, and living in CA is no excuse for losing your ability to think critically. He's just ... I dunno, a shell of his former self.
Maybe my husband saw something in Sam that I missed at the beginning. He could never stand Sam.
It is all good sport to attack the worst actions among believers. Harris does it, as did Hitchens. Some day, we will pull the lens back to wide-angle and remind ourselves that all human beings have worldviews and belief systems. By their fruits, we shall know them. In the space of time, a few thousand years is but a second.
Nazism was heavily buttressed by support among biologists in all the leading German universities, who were heavily invested both in Eugenics and ideas of racial hierarchy.
Does the use of science to support genocide then logically permit me to attack Science per se?If the whole is defined by the worst aspects of the parts, the answer is obviously yes. But unlike Harris, I understand that would be stupid.
Sam Harris is a master of straw man arguments. I think that has been clear in both his comments and your hypothetical. Science does not support genocide or eugenics, nor does it support keeping children home from school for a year or imperiling the lives of many poor and marginalized who rely on carbon energy to power their car, heat their home, and support their economy before we adopt truly "sustainable" strategies that displace carbon without brute force.
Sadly, our political moment will not countenance subtle argument like the one you have presented. So we keep our hands on each others' throats.
"Science does not support genocide or eugenics" This is tricky. Maybe science corrupted by people/politics does? Please see:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/echoes-of-eugenics-what-the-doctors
"The medical profession has wrestled with the significance of the Doctors Trial. For instance, to observe its 50th anniversary, the British Medical Journal printed a special issue (free downloads here). The lead article “War crimes and medical science” warned that the Nazi problems were “not unique to one place or time, and could happen here” and the trial “left us with a legacy we still shrink from confronting.” It pointed to contemporary problems in American medicine and warned “there will always be imperatives that threaten the professional values we profess to hold so dear” and “the profession of medicine carries within it the seeds of its own destruction.”
Harris and Hitch had a mildly transgressive brand and for a time it sold books. Nothing more..
So softly saying insane shit in a calm voice doesn’t do it for ya?
Sam Harris is pompous and without humility and smug too boot. Who would ever listen to him ?
Your comment is so good - it's worth saving to describe any number of people that come to mind.
Well said, although I think conservative-leaning Catholics (myself among them) often fail to appreciate the importance of Pope Francis’ contributions to Church culture. They focus on and mischaracterize a handful of his remarks to the exclusion of his larger evangelization efforts which both conserve and expand upon Church tradition. People make mistakes when they approach Catholicism through the lense of the American political binary.
I believe the Catholic Church has abandoned its most sacred principles. Abortion used to be a deadly sin. Now it seems to be OK with the church. Why else would the Pope suck up to the ever senile Joe and the Wicked Bitch of the West Nancy Pelosi instead of excommunicating them for supporting abortion?
It is either a sin or it isn't. To me it is black and white, no wriggle room. If it is a mortal sin, excommunicate them. If it isn't suck up to the leaders of abortion and that is exactly what this Pope did.
Many priests witnessed the poverty in Latin America and became communists. I believe Francis, an Argentine, was influenced by this. I'm not calling him communist but he is an anti-capitalist and very left wing.
Even after he was a cardinal, he lived in the poorest section of Buenos Aires and caught the bus to work every day. This is admirable but it also had to influence his thinking.
And you? How go you feel about poverty? Like Jesus did? Or like the shallow selfish people at this conference who have forgotten the social justice part of Catholicism, which Jesus gave more shits about than he did abortion.
I grew up on the low end of the pay scale. I did not grow up in the crushing poverty of developing nations but I was poor by US standards.
I could care less what Catholics do. However, if they have firm rules, which they do, and don't enforce them then they are hypocrites.
Hi, LP, you’re spot on. The Catholic Church is growing where it stays firm on the principles and teachings that the rest of the Christian world threw away and went with the flow of “the World.” It is growing *because* it stands firm on these principles, it stands on Jesus Christ where it stands on these principles and does not compromise with what “the World” throws away, does not understand, or finds inconvenient.
The problem is it is being led now by men with too much faith in “worldly wisdom.”
Our (faithful Catholics’) response basically is to know that nothing happens, even this, without God’s permission. So we watch and pray and work faithfully.
My pastor is a convert priest, a Yale Divinity grad former Episcopalian pastor who gave up a six-figure endowment for himself, wife, and three kids because the Catholic Church’s claim on history, teaching, steadfastness, was too compelling to ignore in good faith. He gave it all up to jump from the Thames to the Tiber, and walks the “life principles” walk too, with 11 kids now, as a Catholic priest. And he is not alone. Masses of intellectual Protestants pouring into a newly formed diocese called, in North America, the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. And these pastors are on fire. Knowledgeable, convicted, real. And our parish is booming, where mainstream Roman rite parishes are shriveling up cluelessly as the Bishop tries more and more gimmicks.
Intellectual Protestant Christians become Catholic Christians.
Ignorant (of their Catechism, history, teaching, Bible) Catholics…become protestant…or nones.
Jesus Christ came to be the Light of a verrrry dark and barbaric world.
He not only taught us to love each other, but He taught us that to love is Divine and we have a destiny to have a *relationship* with Love Himself.
Christianity experiences its fullness in the Catholic Church; Christianity itself is not merely a set of teachings or rules from a life guru but a relationship with God Himself that can go as deep as we allow it!
Polecat, should religion not make one's life better? Or should it hinder that life? Divorce is not recognized by the Church, but should one stay married simply because of that "rule"? Divorce is considered a serious offense, but should a Catholic stay married simply because of this rule? How does that help one? How does that help society?
Theresa, I am not a Catholic. In fact I am not religious at all. But if you are a member of a club with strict rules, you either follow those rules or you leave or get thrown out.
Theresa, the Church’s teachings on marriage are “hard” because Jesus Christ Himself taught it and one doesn’t claim to believe in and worship Him selectively…
But Jesus Christ also *knew* these teachings would be hard on us. The world was dark and barbaric without Him and little has changed under the sun. The same conditions of people apply which make marriage hard. Selfishness, lust, hardness of heart, sin. Jesus promised us, though that if we followed Him— *no matter how hard it got* — and He went all the way to Crucifixion— He would be with us and give us the Life we need.
There is so much more to living the Catholic faith…!
A great resource that’ll make you mad, then glad, is Fr. Chris Alar, and the Divine Mercy YouTube channel.
Please know I’m not judging you regarding marriage or your thoughts at all. I just want to make this clear. Thanks. Godspeed.
If Jesus were alive today he would be a champion for those marginalized.
He still is alive today and still champions those marginalized… which would include alllll lives He created for a purpose which we have no moral right to make and then take…
You seem to have a God complex. Why don't you use your real name? What are you hiding? Obviously, something. Your rhetoric is quite odious.
I hope he's helping you right now, because I think you need it.
Noah, you are changing the subject, diverting. The subject is abortion. How do you feel about abortion?
I’m fine with it. It’s sad but it’s a woman’s prerogative until the baby is born. It’s her body. And I’m not changing the subject, because abortion is all these churchy people care about — not social justice. Live babies? Live mothers? Poor mothers? No concern. In fact, religion for them is now a way to divide, to separate the worthy from the unworthy. It’s snobbery, it’s pathetic and it’s un-Christian.
Aborting a fetus that is past 22 weeks is murder plain and simple. I cannot fathom anyone who thinks it is okay to abort past the very beginning of pregnancy. An 8, 9 month fetus can live very well outside the womb. That is murder and is disgusting and immoral. Give the baby up for adoption. AND BTW I AM PRO CHOICE WITH LIMITS. As an RN in the OR, I have been witness to many terminations.
Not true actually, Noah. I don’t think there are more adoptive parents and donors to crisis pregnancy centers than religious Christians. Do you? Thoug I’m sorry you’ve clearly had bad experiences with some Christians, that’s a pretty slanderous statement and mindlessly so.
But you seem to think abortion is a solution to poverty by this argument…
Lonesome, I have no real standing in this. I am not religious in any way. But in a weird way I think Francis might be practicing old fashioned marketing. (You know, like in capitalism).
By which I mean he’s reading the tea leaves in America. Abortion is not a constitutional right any more in this country, but regardless of how he personally feels about it, he realizes that the majority of American women support access to it in some way. If he wants more adherents to the Catholic Church, why not support the access to abortion to get some of them?
Anyway, that’s my useless two cents..
Because it isn't really the Catholic Church if it supports abortion. Kind of like if they start reading Dr. Seuss instead of Scripture, it isn't really the Catholic Church. Or if they begin to worship Rupaul, instead of God, it isn't really Catholic Church.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-throwaway-culture-abortion?amp
It’s an interesting article. It appears Francis is trying to have it both ways.
You nailed it!
You can't read Dr. Seuss. The PC/Woke tyrants have banned it.
You can't read "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Catcher in the Rye", "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings", Harry Potter and I'm pretty sure the biblical Song of Solomon. The right wingnuts have banned them.
" Formal cooperation with abortion results in automatic excommunication. To my knowledge, Biden has not formally cooperated with abortion." You didn't look very far, did you?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
By what you just said, the ever senile Biden and Nancy should have been excommunicated.
I disagree. What does the ever senile Joe have to do, sign it in blood?
The order was not awful. It was an act of kindness.
Well said. And I think your conclusion "often underpinned by a pernicious form of hopelessness" is right. (I had to look up the definition of pernicious).
I am no stranger to hopelessness, and I have worked to leave it behind, which, for me, means being willing to put everything in God's hands, including relationships, worry, and the future.
I think I would be even more pointed than you, on reflection. I would say that these human judgements... are underpinned by hopelessness.
"Church catechesis in the US has long been abysmal . . ." following immediately after "[I]t presumes to know the hearts and minds of all Catholics . . ." is pretty rich. At least throw in an "I think", "it seems to me" or an "IMO" otherwise you are committing the exact offense you find objectionable.
Thanks, Lynne.
Nah. Will Remmes is spot on and I believe everyone knows it.
He may be about Catholicism. That is not my religion so I won't opine. But my point was that he is doing what he is critical of others for doing. There is a lot of that on here of late about a wide variety of topics. That includes your "everybody knows it". That shows a complete disregard for those with differing perspectives.
Is abortion a grave sin? A simple yes or no will do.
Not to me. But I'm not Catholic.
As usual off topic. Watch this to the end if it doesn't jerk a tear out of you, you have no soul. This story renews my faith in humanity. Under crushing evil some good prevailed.
There are some of us that are good, even some Democrats.
Just kidding about the Democrats.
https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/videos/1988-thats-life-sir-nicholas-winton/524868598192459/
I was raised a Catholic. It's not evil, and I'd be willing to bet the farm that an appreciable, if not majority, of Catholics want to keep abortion safe and legal. Many are afraid to speak up in public because it's such a polarizing issue and older Catholics, especially those of my mother's generation, are afraid of the clergy.
I'm not either. I argue that the Church has certain hard rules it claims to follow. If they impose these rules on the faithful but do not enforce them then they are hypocrites, hollow.
I'll rephrase. Is an abortion of convenience a sin? Yes or no.
Francis has absolutely betrayed the faithful in China by giving the CCP authority to approve and appoint bishops.
I am a completely lapsed Catholic. But even when I despised the Church I always admired that it did not cave to pressure to be fashionable. Pope Francis is a sellout in the same way the people running the ACLU are sellouts. He wants to be loved and popular and has abandoned the core tenents of the Church to achieve that.
It's so strange to hear someone speak about Pope Francis being a sellout. The Catholic Church is staggeringly behind the times. It needs to be revamped. It's becoming an archaic fossil and young people don't feel attached to it. Sure, there's comfort in ritual, but only if one grows up within its confines. - something becoming ever less popular. Who really believes that only men should be priests? Why? Because Jesus was a man? That's absurd in this day and age. What young person trusts a priest with their personal problems?
The church’s areas of growth are Africa and South and Central America. Being popular with westerners should not be a priority for the church. The next Pope should be from Africa.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment.
> too many of my Jewish friends have forsaken belief in God while clinging to the notion that they are somehow still Jewish
This is quite common among Quakers, too. Many Quakers who attend meeting every Sunday - probably more than half of those who are under 40 - are atheist or agnostic.
"somehow still Jewish"? So you posit that a Jew that does not believe in God is not Jewish? I strongly disagree.
Ah. Some of your best friends are Jews, eh.
Not sure what your point is but as someone who is Jewish I often pose the question to other Jews if they believe in God. It often leads to a very interesting conversation ( for those willing to engage). It also begs the question what makes something a religion, a question that can delve into lots of subquestons that I am more than happy to discuss
Michael, I, too, have posed those same questions, to Jews who no longer believe in God and to my growing number of friends who are searching for something surpassing belief. The conversations are interesting, to be sure. As I have grown older, belief is about how my belief shapes my life, relationships with others, and my relationship with the countless things for which our world has few satisfying answers. My comment was more an expression of sadness for, without the Jews' belief in God, I (and billions of other Abrahamic believers) would have no mooring. Nor, for that matter, would much of this world if counterfactuals are to be entertained. I like to think that you and I can differ on certain things relating to how we see God while still clinging to the hope that His revelation holds more hope in our shared human project. I worry about a world without Jewish believers, already a vanishingly small number globally, as much as I worry about the intramural squabbles in churches. My late wife was ever-confident that God can handle it, her faith unmoved unto death.
As a thought. Science has proven/reports that on the subatomic level particles know when they're being looked at and can actually change their behavior in response. The experience of consciousness requires a knower and a known. If it doesn't exist in consciousness for most practical purposes it doesn't exist. If the smallest particles of reality, are capable of knowing they're being tampered with, the universe is conscious and alive.
We are finite creatures who spring from, and exist in, what is for us, an eternity. The idea that we have no relationship with that, or that it has no effect on what it means to be a human being is madness. Most religion and societies have evolved out of an attempt to come to terms with that fact and create a meaningful relationship to that experience. The human moral reason born out of that attempt creates lines of demarcation that allow civilization, order and possibility. Beyond those: chaos, war and the re-education camp.
To say Jew, Christian, Buddhist or name any religion is to speak to the cultural, ritual and social orders grown from that attempt. The American Constitution begins with the acknowledged fact that all men (women, people, he, she, it) spring directly from an eternal transcendent living creator which informs the reality of their existence and within the bounds of human moral reason aren't to be fk'd with.
Ritual is the container for myth. Myth informs the human concerning his relationship with the forces at play within the transcendent eternal (or so says Mircea Eliade). Jews (I'm not one/with all respect) have survived the pogroms, slaughters and Auschwitz because their belief/connection to a "living God", cultural history and meaningful myth and ritual. These are not theory, but real forces. This is a new age.
Sure, all of that may be true. But isn't it arrogant and egotistical to think that, because some power we could never possibly understand may be running the universe it therefore means that power loves us, or hates us or even thinks about us at all anymore than we think about ants crawling around outside or that such a power ensures we live forever in a magical place when we die?
And I certainly don't want ANY religion saying it is the "true faith" on which all our laws should be based. At present, 40% of people do not identify with a specific faith and that number is growing. The church parking lot in my town used to be full on Sunday, now there's about a dozen or so cars and mostly elderly people going inside. Why should that be the basis of any kind of government?
I'm saying that the soul (psyche) exists. That there are moral lines of demarcation that define what it is to be a human being, violation of which bring only chaos and consequence. That it's possible and important to acknowledge, develop a relationship and participate with, the living force that informs the fact of our personal as well as our cultural/mythological/civilizational existence.
Well put.
Jews who don't believe in God are Jewish. Their kids won't be Jewish if said Jews has children with a female non-Jew. There's an over 50% assimilation rate among reform Jews and Jews of no faith, while plenty of them are not having any kids at all. Orthodox Jews on the other hand tend to have over 4 kids and are growing at an exponential rate, and retain far more adherents to the faith, and will probably surpass Jewish non believers in the coming decades though right now only making up about 10-15% of Jews worldwide.
Wait so what does this have to do with the article?
I like the old black and white interview with C.G. Jung (on YouBoob) who, when ask'd if he believed in God said with a smile: "I don't believe, I know."
I too know that God exists.
My favorite book on the subject”How to be Jewishif you dont believe in God”. Right next to theTorah
Alan, I cannot find it on AMZN. Is that the title or did the joke loft over my head?
Ah the anti-Semitic trope.. Not relevant. He was simply pointing out that many Reform Temples are embracing the same empty leftist dogma as are many Protestant Churches, and now elements of the Catholic Church, itself. Many Conservative and Orthodox rabbis and congregants would wholly agree with him.
And those Reform temples continue to close due to lack of membership, while the numbers of Orthodox Jews continues to grow.
Orthodox, yes, but Conservative Temples where I live are struggling and have started to adopt some of the woke nonsense and “every cause but their own” attitude of the Reform movement.
Current Jersey Girl here. Same situation, but I was trying to keep my answer simple. I think the one Conservative synagogue in my town (vs. the four Orthodox ones plus multiple independent minyanim) is doing okay, but the rabbi chose to insert himself into a recent political situation, and surprise, surprise, took the leftist position.
Baruch HaShem!!
Yes, including Jesus.
boom!
You tell ‘em, AO. That person who disagrees with you is racist!!
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Now I am confused.
Auto-da-fé time, gotta run.
Who is Sam Harris?
In other words keep an open mind and don't hate the people that don't align with you. Now, why is this so hard to do?
Suzy writes: "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism. The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself."
"Probably???" Why the hell did Suzy feel the need to introduce this sort of snarky, back handed insinuation of anti-Semitism about a group of well meaning people who are trying to steer their church away from the leftist claptrap that masquerades as "religion" nowadays. My own local Episcopal church might as well be a DNC boot camp; it's just that leftist. I am increasingly bothered and annoyed by the elitist, urban snark that finds its way into the Free Press's writings about decent Americans from our Heartland trying to find meaning and social cohesion in these lunatic times. Just please stop and self-reflect.
Agreed. Vatican II was a vast and sweeping change; the disavowal of antisemitism, while courageous and wonderful, was only one component of it. And while there were surely dissidents at the time, most Catholics have lived quite happily for the last several decades with its changes. Vatican II is not what these people are protesting.
For Suzy and her ilk, anti-Catholicism remains the only socially acceptable bigotry.
Ridiculous.
That's just a nasty thing to say.
Yes!!!
Bruce, I guess ‘probably’ in 21st century journalism isn’t the same probably that we grew up with. Probably is now an all encompassing term that increasingly means, well, probably nothing. Let’s see what Suzy could have come up with instead. She probably meant the following:
Definitely
Most Probably
Most Most Probably
For Sure
Absolutely
Absolutely Probably
(don’t say probably at all)
(looking for a better word that’s much stronger than probably but my journalism school thesaurus isn’t helping me)
Anyway, I think I’m probably drunk on my third beer, so I’ll give this up while I’m behind..
Probably.
"Decent Americans from our Heartland"
Lol....and others are "elitist?"
Maybe try an Evangelical church. Bible focused.
No.
Prefer the Church that existed since Christ and actually compiled the Bible.
So the Coptic Orthodox Church?
Which one? There are a several churches that can claim that, most notably, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy.
I know someone associated with an Anglican communion based in Africa that is evangelical. He and his family are located in CO.
There sure are countless so-called "evangelical" churches to choose from. And they don't all follow the same Bible. As a result, each member is his own final authority, rendering the term "Bible-based" an often flimsy reed.
"And they don't all follow the same Bible."
You are incorrect in your claim. They all have the same bible but find emphasis in the different themes. The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" anything else if just like home furnishings in a house. A picture here, a shelf of knick-knacks there, window coverings, etc. It is when they begin their focus on the extraneous that they run into trouble.
But isn't that the same as our various political parties and groups? Each claim that they are a representative democratic group, but they all seek to limit the power of each other.
You can't separate human nature from any movement or idea. It will always alter the outcome of whatever they propose because at heart they have all bought into self-interest.
> The core faith of Christian churches is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism"
Do you mean just within the scope of evangelical churches? Because this is untrue of Christianity in general. Just on the subject of baptism, you'll have many different opinions.
Quakers do not baptize. They take Matthew 3:11 to mean that baptism with water is no longer necessary, and interpret baptism with the Holy Spirit to mean standing up and saying a teaching or encouraging word during meeting.
For another example, if you convert to (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity from Catholicism you must not be baptized (one saint wrote that re-baptism is the re-crucifixion of Christ). However, if you convert from Protestantism, you may need to be baptized, because you were not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. There's also debate about corrective baptism for those who were merely Christmated. (I am not an Orthodox, so I may have gotten some of that wrong).
I grew up going to the Episcopal church. Now, it is unrecognizable. Haven’t found an alternative. So now, it is the church of beauty and nature.
Find a church LL, we flourish as Christians in community with the family of faith.
I saw that too. Unnecessary and unprofessional dig.
She made all kinds of unnecessary judgement statements, mostly about politics, but she and Bari are "Jewish" and never let an opportunity go by without being overly sensitive to any perceived slight towards Jews. Of all the changes in Vatican II, which were MANY, she focused on one. "Antisemitism" is a euphemistic "cancel culture" slur used against anyone who dares to criticize anything or anyone Jewish, deserved or not, and especially when Jewishness was not even a part of the conversation. Their overt knee jerk is all over every article they write, as is their far-left politics. I usually skip over any article she or Bari writes, but as a former Catholic, I wanted to read this one. It's a great topic. Too bad she had to tinge her writing with her loathing for the Catholic church throughout the entire essay. Just pathetic.
But some of the confrence attendees "probably," don't, Bruce.
Nothing wrong with that.
Like saying the massive support for Israel by white evangelicals is "probably" based on End Times Prophecy.
💯
Our local Episcopal Church now has a Cross of St. George Flag (formerly the flag of England - red cross on a white ground) flying above a rainbow flag with a triangle and rainbow stripes coming off of the triangle in the US. What in the world does that mean? Are they claiming it for England?
The Episcopal Church is sophisticated, a quality that this lapsed Catholic girl appreciates. Of course, they're not as cool as the Unitarian Church, who married me to the love of my life, a Jew.
The antisemitism crack was out of left field, there was no connect text, quote, description or anything.
It has become obligatory to mention that Vatican II disavowed antisemitism. It's just a way of smearing people who disagree with other major aspects of Vatican II as antisemitic lugs. I mean, if you don't like Vatican II, it's obvious that you want to go back to burning Jewish businesses after the yearly Passion Play, right?
There was a lot of good in Vatican II (including that) but it came at a time when people were letting down their hair (literally). The 60s were a turbulent era and the church seemed to relax so many beautiful traditions to keep up with the times.
Fun fact about Vatican II: Gregorian Chant, in Latin, was actually promoted by V2 as the ideal mode for mass propers. It died off however, due to a 10 year gap during which no one had updated the chant books to conform to the Novus Ordo. So by the time parish priests had access to a tool kit to even use Gregorian Chant again, alternative musical forms had taken root. Time to bring it back!
I have a friend that had her entire wedding mass in Gregorian Chant in 2012. I am not a Catholic, and that was the first Catholic ceremony I ever saw, so it made no sense to me. Was pretty, though.
It was so disconnected, I actually thought for a second that’s how she was ending the article. I had to scroll down on my phone to look for more text and as I continued, I thought, “Ugh, that was weird?” But all comments re: the tenor/tone of this piece are well taken. The FP is small “l” liberal until it’s kind of not.
Are y’all referring to the “they probably don’t believe Jews are Christ-killers” thing? That was super weird and felt gratuitous.
It was both.
it was also bigoted, plain and simple.
“Christ killers”. Remember how many condemned Mel Gibson for promoting that concept in his film? He was simply portraying what’s written in the gospels which called out both church leadership and the Romans who were really representatives of mankind in general. The point is......we all are responsible for killing Christ out of our own sin. It’s why Christ came. It’s how we’ve been given the opportunity for reconciliation to God himself. The Jews, God’s chosen and the Romans get wrongly accused out of ignorance. But personally knowing some wonderful Jewish people they do confide a real concern for the current wave of anti-semitism in the world. Weiss is only expressing that concern. Get a clue. Give her a break.
Mel Gibson illustrated that we are all responsible for killing Christ when he used his hand nailing Christ to the cross in the Passion.
It is right that Mel Gibson was condemned for portraying Jews as "Christ killers." Gibson has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, before and after the film was made. Gibson is not a fine human.
If you want the trad Catholics to become anti-Semitic, keep telling the world they are anti-Semitic. People often get tricked into defending what they are accused of, if the accusation is spread broadly and deep by the culture.
Like after being called a racist(all white people are racists, systemic racism is the bedrock of America, white supremacists lurk everywhere) so many times that I fear I have become more of a racist?
It tends to happen when you get attacked constantly. I was a moderate classical liberal going into graduate school, but I ended up further right than I was comfortable with by the end, simply as a result of the constant pressure. If one good thing came from the Iraq War for me, it was that it pushed me back to where I started and made me realize that I could not be a Republican.
Please do not get caught in the label trap. What it means to be Republican or Democrat evolves. It is evolving mightily at this particular point in time. Those who do not keep up cast their ballot for things they do not support.
That's why I'm an independent.
At this point in time I could not cast a vote for a Democrat but I consider myself a populist and sometimes leave a vote blank.
Jan 6th made me leave the GOP. In my state you can’t vote in primaries unless registered as a party member, so I switched to Dem to do the same thing as when I was GOP, ie, vote for the most sane and least crazy person in the primary as an effort to keep the loonies out of office.
I think the Biden Justice Department is pushing me to register as an R. Trump and Garland each give us one part of a despotism: refusal to transfer power and political prosecutions.
This kind of random gratuitous line is common on the FP whenever they report something outside of their left leaning comfort zone.
have you been doing some noticing?
I don’t quite follow the line that the about anti-semitism being acceptable before Vatican 2.
For one, just because the church didn’t expressly condemn it, didn’t mean it condoned it. I think would require a longer and more in depth argument. And for two, that doesn’t mean that these people are anti-Semitic. Again, much more evidence would need to be shown. From my understanding of this group, that is not even on their radar.
The line, frankly, seems like a snide aside and a tip of the hand from the neutral journalist position. It seems meant to condemn a group for at anti-semitism without proving it exists.
I'm glad not to be the only one that calls out Suzy for that sort of pseudo-"journalism" that injects personal prejudices into articles in a really annoying and, frankly, transparently juvenile way.
I felt the same way. It was unnecessary.
I wonder if she feels obligated to mention it—tosses it like a bone—to avoid flack from the anti-Christian left for failing to mention one of their "proofs" that devout people are actually just bigots who use religion to cloak their hate...?
The church was extremely antisemitic for most of its existence, if not as a matter of canon policy, then of general European antisemitism. The Spanish Inquisition was but one of the more horrifying examples.
However, any organization is made up of individuals, and there are always those who are decent and compassionate people who oppose the evil humans inflict on other humans.
But I do agree that the references were out of place and detracted from the article. The general tone was one of sneering condescension. I normally love Suzy’s articles, but this one was a fail.
Total fail
Most of Suzy’s articles end on a sneering, condescending note, tbh.
The Spanish Inquisition targeted heretics, not Jews, unless they were "conversos" who secretly practiced Judaism while pretending to be Catholic. Not saying things were great then, but Jews who did not convert were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
Jews absolutely were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition. Read the secular history books that don’t have an axe to grind. And I’m a Catholic saying that.
That might lead someone to think that Jews who did not choose to convert were then left alone to practice their religion freely...which was absolutely NOT the case.
Yes her comment was gratuitous and misplaced. Of course some Jews wanted Jesus dead. And they got their way. But most did not. So, Catholicism has never been anti-semitic, per se; only some members (much like some Jews are / were anti-Christian). It was a remark showing likely her failure to grasp Christianity and its history, mostly good but sometimes bad.
Catholics were all over the place during WWII with some supporting and some opposed to the Nazi's. Hitler was raised Catholic but left the church. Some priests fought for their religion bravely and were executed, others simply looked the other way.
Frankly, it was the same in the USA. We were taught in history class that we were the glorious saviors of the world in WW II but boatloads of Jews were sent back to Germany and certain death before we entered the war.
As our society continues to splinter into left and right and people sort themselves into neighborhoods with like-minded people, there's no reason to think the same won't happen with religion. Am betting in 20 years there will be "Conservative Catholics" and "Reform Catholics"
“You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat.”
———————————————————-
I’m not Catholic but yeah I would imagine being possessed by Satan limits your ability to be a real Catholic.
You're back.
And in rare form. All is right with the world.
And Satan’s happy too. Every Kevin rant’s got Satan mentioned.
I’m wondering if Durant has a tail..
Wrong. I do not have a tail. I have a pitchfork, but that’s just because I hate the government.
I am a Catholic and a traditionally conservative pro-life Republican, and the assertion that one cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat is inimical to authentic Catholic teaching. Instead, is true that it would be a sin for a Catholic to vote or be a member of any party for the wrong reasons, such as a belief that abortions are morally neutral and legal and paid for by taxpayers. It is also true that too many priests have been scandalously timid about teaching the moral precepts of our faith, but some of the priests covered in this article seem to be embarrassingly poorly catechized.
Or: You can't be a human being and an automaton.
When I read that guy’s quote the first person I thought of was you..
You are the first person I thought of when I wrote the thing about people being possessed by Satan.
😂😂😂
That’s a compliment I’ll keep close to my heart.
How did you know?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂!!!!!
“She kicked off the two-day event with a rant……..”
“But under the lanyards and the cheery faces of the volunteers working the conference is a roiling anger…..”
“Another gripe that comes up in several of the speeches…….”
“Some of the rage here dates as far back to 2003……..”
“it might kill your baby in the womb,” Johnson boomed……”
————————————————————
Boy these people sound like dangerous cornered animals who don’t trust the science.
*calls FBI extremism hotline
Ah, the FBI should do its work while it can....it is widely reported that when The Orange Man is elected (again) for his third term, his first move will be to take away the FBI's guns - removing their police powers and the power to arrest - giving them only the power to INVESTIGATE - you know, as in the Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can't wait.
I mean he definitely won’t get elected but taking away their guns is smart. I actually just listened to a detailed explanation of how this would work and it’s a great idea.
Add in those Barney Fife IRS agents to the dis-arming queue.
Remember, Barney only had ONE bullet!
Where did you listen to that?
Daniel Horowitz CR Podcast.
In short, it makes the FBI reliant on local law enforcement which helps when they want to raid the homes of pro-life people, for example. The Sheriff can just tell them to F off.
Thanks. Will check it out.
And I can’t wait for the next terrorist event on our soil.
Who are ya gonna call?
The government investigates after the fact. The FBI was informed that some foreign guys were taking flying lessons but weren't interested in take-offs or landings. The FBI didn't think much of the information. Until September 12th.
A hearse.
So I guess the future looks bleak.
It does, and it all started with the PATRIOT Act.
Passed by the Senate 98 to 1. That’s what happens when emotion, impotence, fury, indignation and anger combine to favour protection over personal freedoms.
Way too much attention is paid to the structure of a church, any church, vs. the message of Jesus Christ. The structure of a church is man made and imperfect. Humans screw things up, we are so good at that. So just focus on Jesus and his messages. It is really remarkable that this God-made-man entered the middle east at a time when savagery, idol worship, and burnt offerings were the norm. He dismissed the 600+ laws of the Jews and distilled it down to one---Love God, Love you neighbor as yourself. No more angry, vengeful God of the Jews. Now God loved us so much, he humiliated himself and died for our sins. So pay no attention to the Pope or any other religious leader who doesn’t spend 100% of his time on Jesus’ teachings.
The great sage Hillel was asked by a gentile if he could teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot. “Do not to your neighbor that which is hateful to you. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; now go and learn.”
Hillel lived a generation before Jesus.
Viewing “the God of the Old Testament” as angry and vengeful based on a superficial reading of the text blithely dismisses the entire religion of Judaism, one of the few religions that has survived for millennia, despite near-perennial persecution. Do you think if Jews saw their god as nothing but a vindictive psychopath, they would have willingly been burned at the stake rather than renounce their faith? Do you think modern observant Jews would choose a lifestyle that entails a great deal of discipline and sacrifice--not to mention expense and inconvenience --for such a deity?
Perhaps there’s a bit more to the “God of the Old Testament” than you think.
I would even say Old Testament is rather offensive, if you actually understand and know something about Jews. It’s called the Hebrew Bible. There’s nothing “old” about it.
Indeed. Smacks of replacement theology.
Oh come now. I live in Jerusalem. There's plenty of 'eye for an eye' theology put into practice around here. The Jews in Israel LOVE that God is both vengeful and on their side. It makes them feel invincible.
Abraham and Isaac, the book of Job—these are the stories cited by anti religion people.
Great post and well summed up.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself.........but don't take down the fence"
appropriating for future use
And there, dear children, is the Truth of it all. Thank you, Maureen.
Maureen: If you want to see someone living the teachings of Jesus - take a look at a video by Peter Santenello called The Man with no Legal Identity - from the comments following the video, I think we all fell in love with young Titus - it is rare that you find anyone who doesn't preach or argue about "religion" but just goes about living the life. He wants to get married and have kids but few could live totally off the grid as he does - and I am far too old and off the grid adverse to qualify but am hoping he finds just the right woman.
By the way Peter has some really great videos I would recommend. He did one on life in Appalachia where I lived many years ago and also several on life at the border.
Maureen, how do you interpret Matthew 5:17-20?
You mean, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven”?
I think Jesus was saying, Pay less attention to how blood is to be splashed on an altar and more on loving your neighbor.
Doesn’t it mean
“There is no way you are going to be good enough on your own to get into heaven.”
Channeling Luther.
The psyche holds its own dimensionality, reality and life. Looking beyond the symbol representing the myth, and attempting to experience the living forces informing the fact of the reality it try's to convey, allows the dogmatic road signs pointing the way to become guideposts to the transformative meaningful experiential.
Maureen, please don’t read into my question anything other than a genuine interest in how to interpret a part of Scripture (and there are a few others) where Jesus seems to be saying “Don’t misunderstand me - I’m not striking Judaism, I’m building upon it.”
No one can show where Jesus then meticulously reinforces each of the Mosaic laws because he didn’t need to - can you imagine Jesus following up the whole “not one letter” clarity by then itemizing every part of Mosaic Law just to make sure he was clear? The larger picture seems clear: What the whole of Scripture suggests is that the Old Testament prefigures the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old (especially Isaiah). It seems clear that when Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees and Sadducees, he wasn’t throwing out the Law, he was telling them they’d lost their way by obsessing too much on those rules themselves - and lording it over the people like dictators (and of course he would then completely refute the Sadducees’ beliefs about bodily resurrection).
We may be saying the same thing actually, but I was curious how that Matthew 5:17-20 could be interpreted to mean that Jesus threw out the Law and replaced it *only* with love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He’s pretty clearly saying to the Jews “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 says:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I see him saying, these are the most important, and everything has to flow from this. I don’t think he’s totally throwing out the Law and religious practices of the Jewish people. He’s saying that if the Law and the rules don’t flow from that, we’re missing the point of them.
Does that make sense?
Yes, thank you. As I posted below to someone else, there is a passage in Mark where Jesus rebuffed the Pharisees about their food prohibitions, saying no food was unclean. Wouldn’t you say that he refutes Deut 14 where food after food is declared unclean for Jews? It seems that he was saying, stop focusing on your man made rules so much and pay attention to what’s really important—he quotes honoring your father and mother for example.
Thinking more about 17-19:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
So show me where Jesus asked for burnt offerings and blood to be splashed on altars? The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus because he upended their order. He taught something new. The Law was about something much bigger than not eating pork and 600 other rules.
And you think Jews somehow managed to miss that bigger picture for a couple of millennia.
As is shown in the New Testament, the Pharisees repeatedly challenged Jesus and did not like his answers. They saw him as a threat to their order.
No he didn't dismiss the 600 laws.. he added to them..Matthew 5:17;
Look at Mark 7:5-21.
Jesus challenged the Pharisees on the laws related to eating.
“…their teachings are merely human rules.”
He goes on to challenge the Mosaic laws related to unclean food, saying, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?..”
So Jesus declared all foods clean. I think that is at odds with Deu 14.
"The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers"
Now why did I read the word "probably" in 24 point type?
Most likely b/c it was written by Suzi Weiss who can't swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen antisemites.
Ahhh--the truth at last. (A good reminder that we all put our pants on one leg at a time.)
Struck me, too. Was completely unnecessary, unwarranted and revealing of a mindset that is troubling.
Yes, this phrase was an odd, discordant loose end. Reminded me of the early 20c Jewish joke about “The Elephant and the Jewish Question.”
They couldn't figure out how to sideswipe Mr Trump so they chose that as their olive branch to the Popular Kids instead.
Jesus was a Jew who was betrayed and killed by his own people. People seem to forget the Jew part.
"There are pictures of singer Sam Smith dressed as a devil, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney clutching a Bud Light can, and Drag Queen Story Hour at a public library." - Yes, there are "pictures" because these things have occurred and are occurring in a culture that wants to cast off any resemblance to a Christian nation. What's interesting to me is when you ask what does a country look like that embraces the opposite of "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not lie"? Is that a place where any sane person wishes to live? Christian activism has increased because the liberal left extremists turned up the temperature in the room to normalize ONLY their opinions and lifestyles. What is the percentage of men that like to cross-dress as women in their daily lives? A simple Google search produces 1.5 percent. So, the Catholic Church must change their entire religious order for 1.5 percent of a group of people? That actually sounds extremist to me.
"The conference attendees probably don’t believe the Jews are Christ-killers, but they do crave a more authentic Church, one that hasn’t forgotten itself." - What an odd thing to insert into this article. It seems to imply that there is a baseline anti-Semitic tone to this whole conference and its attendees. Most Catholics (including me) who are frustrated with the modern Church are just looking to limit the number of guitars and drum sets that are played during the mass, because it's really annoying. I promise we aren't anti-Semitic!
It not only seemed to imply, but I read it loud and clear. Was very unfortunate and Suzy would do well to reflect on her world view and own prejudices.
I just want to know if Suzy really thinks Catholics want a Latin mass??? LOL. I have never rolled by eyes more at her writing. It took half a day to read this one when I saw the by line.
A local parish does a Latin mass on the first Sunday of the month, and it's nice. Not the full 2 hours long mass, they shorten it significantly to fit it in under an hour, but it's nice to go to for a change and experience something different.
HA! In the old Latin days, I'd go to the 6AM Mass because it was so short, 30 minutes max! I still remember some of that Latin, too!
good to know :)
We have a church in our town that has the Latin Mass. It’s a rogue parish. A lot of cities have them. There’s an entire movement of people who hate Vatican 2 and want to return the before times. It’s not a huge number and certainly not the majority (or even close) of Catholics, but they’re more of them than you would think.
How many drum sets are played in your church during mass?
Usually 1, which is 1 too many
I can't imagine drums in a Catholic mass. They fit with some other denominations. I've played drums in several churches and quit most of them because the music was boring. My favorite experience was one Father's Day when the pastor walked onto the platform, plugged his lap steel into a Fender Twin amp, turned it up to 10, played Onward Christian Soldiers, ala Jimi Hendrix, and afterward stood up and said to the men; "Get a job!" Turned and walked off the platform. Best sermon ever.
Hey, don't complain about drums! An evangelical church that I visited had a SMOKE MACHINE to accompany the band, along with oscillating lights that swept the congregation!
According to the dogma of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is infallible. In religion, dogmas are dogmas. There have been schisms since the beginning of Christianity and today everybody is free to go and establish their own church, as opposed to the good days of yore when heretics god killed en masse and in impressive fashions by the orthodox believers (of course, both sides since the beginning of history have held to be the one true believers).
But these priests suffer from the very main sin of the wokery they abhor: they pretend to victimhood where none is to be found. Their problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to be acknowledged as being right by a church whose hierarchy they despise and whose edicts they refuse to recognise.
It is pretty ridiculous.
The Pope is only infallible within very strict limits; I think that there have only been two times in history that infallible pronouncements were made.
The Pope is only infallible hen it comes to declaring things regarding Faith and Morals. There is a continuity passed down through the centuries starting with the Apostles regarding our faith and what is moral behavior. This is called the ordinary Magisterium ( teachings of the Church) and Catholics should feel obliged to accept them
You are correct Heide- there were 2 times that Popes have declared formally an infallible teaching, both having to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her Immaculate conception- that she was conceived without sin, and the second, that she was assumed into heaven after her death.
Regarding this article- it is hard for all of us to be obedient to anyone. These priests did take a vow of obedience to their Bishop and the Church(led by the Pope. They would do well to practice the virtue of Humility.
That being said- Pope Francis has done (and said)some troubling things, but he is the legitimate Pope and we must pray for him. God is ultimately in charge.
There is a good book, Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid that talks about the papacy through history. Maybe a longer answer than you needed!
Exactly--non-Catholics hear of papal infallibility and think it applies to everything a pope says. (And thank you for including the correct definition of the much misunderstood immaculate conception.)
People thinking "immaculate conception" refers to Jesus being conceived by a virgin drives me absolutely NUTS. Even more nuts than when people say "vagina" when they mean "vulva," and when people think there's an apostrophe in "Howards End."
Too funny- I was at the Vatican museum and we can to a painting depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of the Annunciation and our tour guide described it as the Immaculate Conception. When I explained his error- he looked at me like I was an idiot 🙄. In his defense- he was an art major not a theology student😂
We are obviously twins separated at birth. 🤣
Incidentally, if that was referred to me, I am non-Catholic and not Christian and an Agnostic by choice, but not by education.
But I made a broad statement worthy of being picked at, and it was worthily picked at. Hopefully I managed to detail it better.
And unfortunately a vast number of Catholics make that same mistake about the Immaculate Conception. For a very large number of people the complexities of dogmas are too much to deal with and always have been -- most of the work of the medieval Church was done striving to correct (often with physical eradication) the misinterpretation of some tenet of doctrine. Heresies of ignorance are much more common than heresies of the reasoned intellect.
Historically, many popes clearly lived nonbiblical lives and failed. That dictum of infallibility is not biblical and is a man made control edict. The real doctrine should read that the pope has final say on any conflicts in the church that cannot be reconciled at lower levels or through critical read of scripture. There are areas where scripture are conflicting or not explicitly clear in regard to how we worship.
I know; I attended Catholic school and college, where Theology was a required subject.
Sorry for not having specified further, simplifications always cause misunderstanding.
Yes, the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope (which exists only since 1870) only applies as such when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and 'mores', which means customs/usages/habits, even if we tend to translate it with morals, and includes a much larger sphere than what we usually put under 'morals'. The Vatican Council (each and every one of them) is infallible in its edicts.
The edicts, both of the Pope and the Council and descended through the hierarchy, are what matters, the dogmas established and the decisions taken according to canonic law. The Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and obedience to the dictates of the hierarchy has always been one of its major tenets.
While there has always been plenty of disagreements (for church/ecclesia means community, and community is made of people), rebelling against one's superiors in the hierarchy (and their decree) is for a Catholic to put oneself outside of the Church.
Strictly in a matter of law, to deny the authority of the Pope, the validity of his magisterium, or the authority and validity of the Councils, the hierarchy, and the decrees that descend from these institutions, is to put oneself outside of the Catholic Church.
And it is not just the denial of Papal authority when speaking ex cathedra that falls into this category. The Constitution Pastor Aeternum is clear, even if the passage (at the end of Chapter 3) is constantly carefully abridged out in English translations:
Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.
If then someone should say that the Roman Pontiff only has an office of inspection or direction, but not also the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and customs, but also in matters pertaining broadly to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; or that he should have only the greater parts, but not the whole fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, either over each and every community, or over each and every pastor and faithful; be this anathema.
(My translation -- original text: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html)
To insult the Pope and to declare the Pope to be an heretic should be anathema to a Catholic and especially to an ordained minister. One can disagree with decrees and directives but must obey them until they are declared invalid or lifted by the proper authority. Unorthodox clerics and theologians have been silenced and suspended a divinis by ecclesiastical authorities for two thousand years: it is not a particularly 'woke' practice. It is how the Catholic Church works -- only when unorthodox positions become widespread enough they seep into the hierarchy and then become orthodoxy. In the meanwhile, the minority positions are held to respect and obedience.
I just find the position of these priests and their followers extremely ridiculous besides distasteful -- and mightily 'woke' in the demands of a fringe minority to rule the majority. Why do they stay in a Church which they seem to despise so much?
But there is plenty of madness in the world.
There is a very long history of Catholics disagreeing with the Pope while worshipping his Office at the same time.
I grew up Catholic and even attended Catholic high school, but I fell from grace when I realized that I just couldn't live up to the Church's ideas of "mortal" sin, for which THIS teenager was subject to. Use your imagination here.
What truly turned me away was when while in confession the priest intoned, "When is this going to stop?" I was speechless and humiliated. He then followed up with "Do you know what would happen to you if you died right now?" I responded with "I guess I'd go to hell", to which he confirmed, "That's right! You'd go straight to hell!". Now THERE is the mercy that Jesus spoke of! (Sarcasm, if you missed it.)
I never returned, but I DID find mercy in the Jesus of the bible a couple of years later when a street preacher button-holed me one day at college and introduced me to salvation by grace. I couldn't help but violate church "laws" but discovered that God is only interested in a humble and contrite heart, and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. God does not change human nature, but He DOES give us a path to follow that SHOULD lead us to a better life.
You can disagree on doctrine, but you cannot tell me, or anyone, for that matter, that their experience is wrong and that they believe a myth.
And before any of the devout try to tell me that this particular priest was not representative, I must say, CORRECT! It was years later that I met priests who could have helped me because they KNEW the Jesus of the Bible and endeavored to live like it.
Kat Timpf's book "You Can't Joke About That" contains a very similar (and very amusing) account of why she left the Catholic Church. You describe how uncomfortable you felt having to confess your "mortal sins" multiple times to an unsympathetic priest. Imagine a young girl going through the same experience, with a trip to hell supposedly awaiting her if she died before confessing her latest "transgression".
While these people could branch off and form their own church. What's wrong with wanting to or at least trying to "right the ship" in the church they grew up in? First choice should be to reconcile the Catholic church with it's historical teachings and beliefs. Last resort should be to form a new denomination.
Tony, the Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy. Change from the bottom up is just not possible except in extreme situations. These priests know this to be true, and some of them were disciplined for matters of conscience, NOT for violating official Church doctrine.
If you’re worried about incipient anti semitism in the Catholic Church you’re not going to find it. There have always been and always will be Catholics who blame Jews for Christ’s death. They are a small minority and that percentage has decreased in the past 40 years. If you’re Jewish and think you have something to fear from conservative Catholicism you are ignorant of the facts.
The Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate. They refused his offer to release him. But all this was necessary to fulfill Jesus’ fate. So I don’t think Christians blame Jews for doing what was foreordained.
I find myself troubled by the "Jews handed over Jesus" line. Jews were equally Jesus's followers. Most of the people in Jerusalem at the time were Jews. The libel of an entire people for the act of a few has never sat well with me.
The gospels were written when Rome was still the ruling power of the world. Who would you rather piss off--the Romans, or a bunch of politically powerless Jews?
The Jewish leaders killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Jesus killed Jesus, in the sense that “No one takes my life from me….”
But above all, I killed Jesus.
I often think of Mel Gibson, who has at times lapsed into antisemitism (and repented), but insisted on filming his own hands pounding in the nails for “Passion of the Christ.”
Their is no place for me to blame the Jews.
Lest we forget, the first Pope (Peter) was a Jew
Would it be better if I had written, “People who were Jewish handed Jesus over?
See Matthew 26, Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:20, “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.”
Does this indict all Jews forever? Of course not. The apostles were Jews, so was Paul.
Should all Catholic priests be indicted for the acts of a few bad ones?
No Christian I have ever known hold malice against Jews. Quite the opposite.
I spent three years in seminary being steeped in our Judeo=Christian history and it was very clearly stated that the Romans killed not only Jesus - remember this was before Christianity claimed him - but also the many other "prophets" who roamed the Galilee in those days. It takes a lot of study, convesation, open mindedness and the desire to see things through the lenses of those who wrote and lived the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and not through 21st century eyes to understand what the stories told through thousands of years meant.to the original hearers. It is a fasinating study - the sadness is, we spend so much time arguing rather than understanding.
My sister had a Catholic friend who told her we were going to hell because we have a Jewish parent. And a Jewish friend of mine was bullied by some sort of Christian (as far as she could tell) who called her "Christ killer." I'm glad you haven't met any of the sort, but they are out there.
I have a Jewish friend who lived in Texas; growing up she was taunted for her background. A woman, approximately the same age, was bullied in NYC for being Jewish - stones were thrown at her.
I hope you didn't take it as an accusation. I respect you, your comments and your faith immensely.
Most do not blame the Jews today, but they definitely did blame them for centuries after Christ’s death. I didn’t realize how pervasive this belief was until I took a course in antisemitism, where I read a lot about the history of antisemitism. While this belief continued to be held over time, the Catholic Church was also doing things like condemning Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. There were a lot of insane things being believed that hurt a lot of people. Christians believed in witches and burned them alive, but they never believed Jews killed Christ? Think about that.
"Some" Jews handed Christ over to the Romans. Opinion-especially religious opinion and ritual- is so varied it is impossible to shoehorn it into a one size fits all acceptability for everyone. Popular argument about the existence of an historical Jesus is a good example. The point is, that like today with the sudden jump in tech and communication, there was a leap in consciousness that transformed civilization. Something happened, about which, we can draw any conclusion we wish, but the fact remains that, whatever it was, is so powerful it continues to inform the fact of Western Civilization and our lives today. This article, like most we discuss here, is an example, as with the Christ, of what happens when the living transformative powers of the human psyche (the Soul) find themselves in conflict with political power, ambition and gold. God is not dead. Nor are we. The fight and the disease, as accurately diagnosed by many, is the split in the human psyche created by the sterility of a scientific reason that would turn mankind into robots (AI) vs. the realtime connection and access to the living eternal and meaningful religious experience that actually evolves the definition of what the term human being means. The chasm is real. As is the Psyche.
The 20th Century produced the ideological utopianism (nazi/fascist/communist) that hurled millions into the death camp mass psychosis that unleashed the hubristic malignant narcissism of Hitler, Mao and Stalin. Like the corrupt Pharisees confronted by the newly emergent powerful dynamic of Jesus teachings, the DNC/CCP/EU Davos central banking hog boys find themselves standing in the light of a suddenly expanding world consciousness that clearly sees them for the grifters they are. Hence the LIE they represent, "canceled Priests", and the assault on free speech and the looted economies and destruction they leave wherever they go. And, that you are a deplorable "thing" unworthy of the freedom to which you aspire.
Do we as a people believe, that human beings -possess/are possessed by- an eternal Soul? That the dead who inhabit our common history, despite the times they lived in, and the flaws that possessed them, struggled toward the light and hoped for a better world? Do we believe our common myth, that "all men are created equal", and are "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"?
Light a candle. Sit quietly in the darkness. Talk to the Soul within you. Remember who you are.
These people were not canceled in the Kingdom of God, they were relieved of their duties in the Catholic Church. Not for ignoring God but for not following the rules of the Catholic Church and edicts of the Pope, They have the opportunity to start a new Church and instead of funding the Canon lawyers they could be starting the new Church.
Africa is the continent with the fastest growing Catholic population. The number of Catholics in Africa is projected to increase by 146% from 2004 to 2050. This growth is being driven by a number of factors, including high birth rates, conversion from other religions, and immigration from other parts of the world.
Asia is another continent with a rapidly growing Catholic population. The number of Catholics in Asia is projected to increase by 63% from 2004 to 2050. This growth is being driven by high birth rates, conversion from other religions, and economic development.
Look at the pictures. These people are not looking to the future of the Chruch, they are lamenting of "how it used to be". Once again it is the minority trying to force themselves on the majority. Victims of their own greed.
Reading this, my mind went to Paul telling us how to behave toward our brothers. For example, “As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another in all wisdom; and with gratitude in your hearts sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
Colossians 3:12-17 NRSV
Suzi did not report much in the way of, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.
“...which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism.” This is disingenuous reporting. How does this better inform the reader? You are poisoning the well. I expect reporting of this caliber from Fox and CNN. This implication is egregious and disgusting, to imply that traditionalists would in any way have a soft stance on antisemitism is garbage. A call to tradition is not by necessity a call to backwards thinking.
Suzy has had some decent pieces, but this is an absolute CLUNKER.
The authors throw away line linking opposition to Vatican II with support for anti-Semitism is disingenuous at best. "For many, that means returning to a time before the Second Vatican Council, which, among many changes, expressly disavowed any theological basis for antisemitism."
The proceedings of Vatican II lasted for two months, hundreds of scholars and church leaders were involved. 16 Decrees containing hundreds of paragraphs were promulgated by Vatican II, one of which (Declaration 7) addressed the issue of anti-Semitism in four places, the same Decree also mentions Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists where we (Catholics) are told that these other faiths teach "a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.as faiths" .
I am not interested in downplaying the importance of the public declaration by the church that anti-Semitism is wrong but the author leaves the impression (purposefully in my opinion) that opposition to the wide ranging changes to the church ushered in by Vatican II is a mark of anti-Semitism. Like the culture wars today in which opposition to transgender surgery for minors turns one into a homophobe, opposition to the many interpretations of the decrees that many Catholics feel went beyond their original intent is used as a cudgel to silence opponents of some of the more radical reforms in doctrine and practice of the church.
Terrific commentary. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Strong post.
he gets props for holding msss during covid