|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2014 21:19:59 GMT
Here is an interesting blog I came across by a JEwish historian who writes on hostile stereotypes of JEws in nineteenth and twentieth-century English Catholic writers. I think a lot of his stuff is quite sound, as he supports it by pretty clear quotations. I am linking to his longest thread on Chesterton (he has published a book on Chesterton and the JEws) which seems to me to be pretty well-supported. I think GKC was a great writer and a good man, and he should not be equated with Nazis and the like, but his portrayal of JEws does have serious problems which should not be brushed over. Some of the uncollected material from THE EYE WITNESS during the First WOrld War, with GKC repeating rumours about Jews trampling people during air-raids etc is very bad. Chesterton is not the only painful subject on this site; it is sad to see Bishop Casartelli of Salford swallowing the JEw-baiting contained in Belloc's THE JEWS, or Mgr William Barry (a distinguished intellectual of Irish descent, much influenced by NEwman) coming out with some of the statements quoted by DR Mayes. Although I am somewhat reluctant to go into this in depth, given the sensitivity of the subject, I would enter a couple of caveats; (1) In one of his posts Dr Mayes treats some remarks by Monsignor Ronald Knox about Pharisees, and the Pharisees of the NEw Testament, as an anti-semitic stereotype. This is influenced by awareness of the manner in which the image of JEws as eternal Pharisees has been used against them, but I think Mgr Knox's views as quoted refer specifically to the Pharisees of the NEw Testament (we should bear in mind that the NT criticisms of the Pharisees are made for particular purposes and do not mean the Pharisees had no virtues; remember St Paul's getting the Pharisees to defend him in Acts) and they also refer to a specific legalist attitude towards religion which can be found in any religion and which is a perversion of legitimate concerns. There is always going to be a difference between Jews (who recall the Pharisees with good reason as heroic defenders of JEwish Law under Roman oppression) and Christians on the Pharisees, but we should be very careful to understand the JEwish viewpoint and to bear in mind the horrors which have been inflicted on Jews in the past by people who boasted "Thank God we are not like these Pharisees". (2) Dr Mayers also criticises the great Jesuit hagiologist/apologist Fr Herbert Thurston for suggesting that while there is no basis for the claim that Jews as a body sacrificed Christian children, such things may have been done in individual cases by lunatics or occultists who happened to be Jewish. Dr MAyers makes a convincing case that the evidence adduced by Fr Thurston does not stand up on closer examination, but again it seems to me from his report of Fr Thurston's views that Fr Thurston was simply expressing a legitimate hypothesis for further examination (which in this case has disproved the hypothesis). This is a very different matter from the classic blood libel founded on hatred and impervious to reason, and I would suggest that the contemporary JEwish authorities who, as Dr MAyers himself states, thanked Fr Thurston for defending JEws against such slanders, were well aware of this distinction. It is possible, of course, that Fr Thurston's hypothetical statements may have been used by genuine anti-semites for their own ends, which is another matter. Once again, this is a very delicate subject given the hideous history of Christians and Catholics persecuting JEws on the basis of the blood libel, and the ways in which such stereotypes carried over into racial anti-semitism culminating in the Holocaust. simonmayers.com/category/g-k-chesterton/
|
|
|
Post by shane on Feb 12, 2014 22:19:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 13, 2014 23:14:01 GMT
Very good recovery, Shane. I used to see Doris Manly occasionally at that time and I remember her saying how shocked she was that another Catholic magazine based in Ireland had started to reproduce Fahey material, though for legal reasons she could not criticise that magazine by name in the BALLINTRILLICK.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 14, 2014 20:05:48 GMT
Great article, God bless her. I particularly like the comparison with the Legion of Mary. Frank Duff comes out of this very well indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 14, 2014 20:29:19 GMT
Indeed Frank Duff was a remarkable man and there is much we can learn from him (and I say this as someone who has no connection with the Legion of Mary). BTW one rather depressing comment on Archbishop McQuaid's mindset is the difference between the amount of latitude Maria Duce was allowed and the speed with which Duff's interdenominational discussion groups were crushed, on the grounds that their distinguished members could not be trusted to discuss doctrine with Jews and Protestants without endangering their own faith. (And this wasn't just because Fahey was a leading Spiritan, because prominent Spiritan priests, including McQuaid's predecessor as headmaster of Blackrock, were involved in the Mercier and Pillar of Fire Societies.) OK, John Charles McQuaid didn't promote Maria Duce and considered it something of an embarrassment, but he gave it an extraordinary length of rope (at least while Fahey was alive). Someone who has done a little work on something else in the McQuaid papers (which were not open when Sr Athans wrote) told me that he came across a letter from Fahey to McQuaid in the late 1940s in which he complained about certain Dublin Catholics (whose faith was unquestionable) criticising Maria Duce. In this letter, Fahey actually tells McQuaid that so long as Maria Duce is not formally condemned and is allowed to operate in the archdiocese, he will consider it as an officially-approved form of Catholic Action, and as such it is entitled to the active support of every Dublin Catholic. The fact that McQuaid knew Fahey was taking this attitude raises very serious questions over his failure to rein in Maria Duce.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 8, 2014 18:53:41 GMT
Glad to see the British Latin Mass Society chairman warning trads against anti-semitism on his blog and publicising an article on the subject by another traditionalist www.lmschairman.org/2014/03/the-church-jews-and-piranha-tank.htmlEXTRACT Dr Lamont is extremely sympathetic to the Traditional Catholic cause, and this is by no means an attack on that. It is a corrective, however, to claims made by some attached to the Traditional Mass, and specifically to some remarks of Bishop Fellay, Superior of the Society of St Pius X. I do not regard the SSPX, as an organisation, as anti-Semitic either in theory or practice: anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that the SSPX has the habit of ejecting members who have clearly anti-Semitic views. What is evident, however, is that there is a current of conspiracy-theory thinking which can be found in Traditional Catholic circles which can easily lend itself to anti-Semitism. Dr Lamont's article on the Homiletic and Pastoral Review website is already generating the kinds of comments which give Traditional Catholics a bad name: anyone addressing these matters on the internet steps into a tank of piranhas. These commenters - perhaps they will make an appearance on this blog as well - are not representative of the Traditional Catholic movement. Since they are attracting the attention of many who are open-minded about or hostile to the Traditional Catholic cause, I believe that it has become dangerous simply to ignore them. It is time the rest of us made it clear that we do not agree with them, and why. The same task falls to those on both the political left and right in the UK, the fringes (and not just the fringes) of whose movements attract their own versions of the unpleasant views which can be found on the fringes of Traditional Catholicism. I also think it is important to set out the reasoned case, from a perspective friendly to Traditional Catholicism, against the key claims of the conspiracy-theory types, since this case involves historical facts which are not all widely known even by those not at all attracted by the conspiracy theories. END OF EXTRACT Here is the link to the article referenced by Dr Shaw: www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-jews-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/As Dr Shaw himself puts it: EXTRACT Joseph Shaw5:52 pm Almost everything I post here I do not with the idea that I will persuade hardened enemies, but to influence the undecided and to provide good arguments for those who instinctively agree. I'd be interested (seriously, since you seem an articulate fellow) to know what you would propose to deal with the problem of the TLM becoming typecast as associated with anti-semitism. END I would remind participants on this forum that anyone who tries to use it to propagate anti-semitism will be expelled immediately
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 7, 2014 21:39:37 GMT
As I may have mentioned elsewhere, I have a particular devotion to St Edith Stein, and I have recently been reading AUNT EDITH, a memoir of her life and family by her niece Suzanne Batsdorff. This is quite interesting because it comments on the Stein family from the point of view of Dr Batsdorff's own childhood memories of Breslau and of what she was told by her relatives, and it forms a supplement/commentary on Edith's memoir LIFE IN A JEWISH FAMILY. (The overall line is that it is mainly accurate but written from Edith's particular perspective within the family - she was the youngest child, and family order can make a difference in these things - and also startlingly indiscreet. On that it should be remembered that its purpose was in part apologetic, to counter the Nazi claim that Jews could not be true Germans, and that she may have felt that for such apologetic to be credible, ruthless honesty is necessary; also she might have revised it a bit if she had lived.) Dr Batsdorff writes as a believing Jew (her father took particular care that she and her siblings should receive a traditional Jewish education, as he and his siblings had not, because he believed that if Edith and her sister Rosa had received such an education they might have remained Jews in faith). She points out that some of Edith's early Catholic biographers exaggerated the degree of Jewish practice and education of the Stein household, and that some of these exaggerations have the purpose of presenting Judaism as something solely and necessarily formalist and outworn. This is a very reasonable point and it is right that a Jew, or anyone concerned with accuracy and honesty, should point it out. A much more painful element of Dr Batsdorff's book is her recollection of the history of persecution of Jews by Catholics in mediaeval Breslau; she states that her father said that he could never walk through the main square of Breslau without feeling that he could smell the roasting flesh of the Jews burned alive there by St John Capistrano on the basis of allegations that they had desecrated the Host, (the survivors were expelled from the city and only readmitted long after the Reformation) and that when he was trying to persuade Edith not to convert the recollection of this incident was one of the arguments that he used. For the Jewish Encyclopedia account of this horrific incident, see HERE www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4004-capistrano-john-of Even allowing for a certain bias, this is quite sufficiently horrific. I don't mean to deny that St John Capistrano (OFM) was in good faith, and that he was a great preacher and saint; but saints may still do evil things, and we may have greater or less affinity with them. I confess that after reading this I will always shudder when I see the stained glass window of St John Capistrano in St Kevin's Harrington Street, just as I always shudder when I see the statue of St Vincent Ferrer OP (another great 15th-century apocalyptic preacher, and another hounder of the Jews; I only found out the full horror of his activities when I saw them held up as representing the ideal Catholic attitude towards Jews by MadRadTrads) in St Saviour's Church in Dominick Street.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 5, 2014 20:33:44 GMT
A very good CATHOLIC HERALD piece on the need for Catholics to be wary of anti-semitism and to guard against it. By anti-semitism of course I do not mean legitimate criticism of Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians, or documented criticisms of actions by individual Jews. I am referring specifically to conspiracy theories and stereotypes which have a long and dark history and to which some Catholic trads have been dreadfully prone. www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/08/29/catholics-must-atone-for-their-anti-semitism/EXTRACT We Catholics often complain about the way we are misrepresented, and others complain that we complain. But we can hardly claim misrepresentation for ourselves and ignore the way the Jews are being treated by certain elements. If we are against lies, then we have to be against the lies told about everyone. We cannot be selective. We have to stand up for truth. Truth is not bound by space and time. Given that Catholics have suffered persecution in Britain, this should make us particularly sympathetic to other religious groups who might be suffering in the same way. There is another reason too. Historically, there have been Catholic anti-Semites. We need to repent for this, and we have done so, not least through the words of St John Paul II. We must be clear that this is one Catholic tradition that we do not hold to, and we need to remember that the Church evaluates traditions critically: only good traditions are normative. Moreover, even today, there are Catholic anti-Semites, and we need to tell these fellow Catholics of ours that their anti-Semitism is not rational, but rather deeply sinful. Hatred is never good. Who are the Catholic anti-Semites? Here we must tread with caution. Some of them are people who, for whatever reason, are tempted to give way to irrational explanations for the way the world is, as a way of holding reality at bay. These will often be the same people who have ideas about the Freemasons, the Bilderburg group, the CIA, and so on. They do not have hostility to Jews as such (they don’t know any) but they have a hostility to the world, and seek some grand unifying theory to explain their sense of alienation from the world. They are not bad people as such (though their views are bad and can do great damage) but they are deluded and do need help. Moreover, there are some splinter groups, some of which are in a dubious canonical position, which seem to be wedded to anti-Semitism. The Church needs to treat these splinter groups with the very greatest of caution... All this raises the question what the institutional Church can do about people who call themselves Catholic but over whom the bishops have no authority. I suppose the only answer is that we must make clear our abhorrence of anti-Semitism in all its forms and anything that seems to smell of anti-Semitism. We must drown out lies with the water of truth. And we must be extremely careful in our own utterances, to make sure that we do not give way to this irrational psychosis. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 11, 2015 19:44:55 GMT
Just in case we think anti-semitism is confined to the fringe trads who are the main focus of this thread, Alan Shatter has an interview in the SUNDAY INDEPENDENT today in which he mentions far-left water charges protestors outside Leinster House calling him a Jewish ****** and telling him "Go back to ISrael". I think some of the measures favoured by Mr Shatter have been harmful to the country, but I say this as one Irish citizen criticising another, and as a member of the public expressing my opinion of a public representative. It is outrageous that he should be abused on the basis of his religious and ethnic origins over measures for which many other deputies of different backgrounds and religions are equally responsible. BTW I wonder will the same media who pounced on outrageous remarks and actions by individuals associated with the pro-life movement hold the Trots collectively responsible for this outrage, as they did with pro-lifers as a whole over the behaviour of the clowns in question?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 11, 2015 19:48:31 GMT
Just in case we think anti-semitism is confined to the fringe trads who are the main focus of this thread, Alan Shatter has an interview in the SUNDAY INDEPENDENT today in which he mentions far-left water charges protestors outside Leinster House calling him a Jewish ****** and telling him "Go back to ISrael". I think some of the measures favoured by Mr Shatter have been harmful to the country, but I say this as one Irish citizen criticising another, and as a member of the public expressing my opinion of a public representative. It is outrageous that he should be abused on the basis of his religious and ethnic origins over measures for which many other deputies of different backgrounds and religions are equally responsible. BTW I wonder will the same media who pounced on outrageous remarks and actions by individuals associated with the pro-life movement hold the Trots collectively responsible for this outrage, as they did with pro-lifers as a whole over the behaviour of the clowns in question? Somehow, I wouldn't rule it out. RTE in particular has presented the water charge protesters and the far-left in a very unflattering light (much of it deserved), so were they to highlight this, it wouldn't be that surprising.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 11, 2015 20:56:43 GMT
Joan Burton claimed the protestors around her car were using sexist and homophobic slurs. I am not a fan of said protestors, but I find that hard to believe (they are lefties, after all), and I'm similarly reluctant to simply accept Shatter's claim. Admittedly, it is rather more believable, considering the genuine anti-semitism and anti-Israeli feeling that exists in the Irish left, but that doesn't mean that it happened. Where is the proof?
Please note, I am NOT defending anti-semitism. As a matter of fact I do think anti-semitism is rife in Ireland, both amongst the Catholic right and the liberal left. I think it is the only prejudice which is actually understated rather than exaggerated, these days. And I have a deep respect for the Jewish people and the Jewish faith, and I think the Christian treatment of the Jews is the most shameful part of Christian history. But I'm still reluctant to simply accept any claim like this.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Oct 12, 2015 10:12:25 GMT
I am generally inclined to believe most such claims. People are terrible, especially when they think they have the moral high ground.
You should also remember that the most aggressive water protestors were no more likely to be principled left-wingers than working-class people with an inchoate sense of rage.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 28, 2016 21:26:03 GMT
Fr Thomas Morrissey has just brought out a biography of Fr Edward Cahill, the mid-century IRish JEsuit social theorist who used to write about Freemasons. It appears that about 1930 Fr Cahill tried to publish two articles on JEwish conspiracies but was forbidden by his superiors, who noted that the articles were full of uncritical reproductions of claims made by anti-semites, and if they appeared the JEws would have just cause for complaint. (The material may have derived from Fr Fahey, who corresponded with Fr Cahill.) This incident speaks well for the 1930s Irish JEsuits, and by extension puts the Irish Spiritans' permitting Fr Fahey to continUE his antics in an even worse light.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2017 23:18:03 GMT
Steven Spielberg is currently making a film about the Mortara Case, in which a Jewish child in the Papal States in the late 1850s was taken from his family on the grounds that he had been baptised by a Catholic servant when he was in danger of death, and must therefore be brought up as a Catholic. (His family and their sympathisers made extensive efforts to get him back, but in vain; he later became a priest.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_caseWhen the film comes out, we can expect a lot of anti-Church publicity. We should prepare for this, and keep an eye out for any elements of distortion or misrepresentation that may occur. That said, and before the question of accuracy in detail arises, I wish to state unequivocally that the treatment of Edgardo Mortara and his family by the Church's officials was atrocious and utterly indefensible (though I expect some people will be found to defend it). Ask yourself how you would react if officials in a Protestant country had treated a Catholic family in this manner, and you will see exactly what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2017 23:33:09 GMT
Indeed, since I learned about it, I've wondered why Catholic-bashers don't use this more often.
Quite disappointed in Spielberg. He struck me as someone with a respect for religion in general. Not suggesting any subject should be off-limits for film-making, but why is this story relevant in an era of unprecedented harmony between the Catholic Church and Judaism?
|
|