Pope Benedict XVI enjoyed himself in the United States of America!
Posted on 04/26/2008 5:06:13 PM PDT by NYer
It's common knowledge that Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, is less than taken, shall we say, with the Catholic Church. (Note, for example, his insistence that Catholics refrain from talking about the Gospel with Jews, an activity that Foxman apparently believes is "proselytizing".) And he's certainly entitled to his opinion, although I think he's a bit cranky about things, as evidenced by his remarks about Pope Benedict's inter-religious meeting in Washington, D.C. last week (as reported by the New Jersey Jewish Standard):
Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, who attended a meeting with the pope at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., last Thursday, called it "more show that substance, but for the Vatican even show is substance."
The fact that the pope invited the approximately 50 Jewish representatives to meet with him in a private room was an important gesture, said Foxman, because he "greeted us on the occasion of a Jewish festival, which basically was a recognition of religious Jewish life, Jewish faith, and Jewish rituals, and had that significance."
But there was no real dialogue, in Foxman’s view.
And we know Foxman is all about dialogue! But when he tries to rewrite history and Church teaching by misrepresenting the actions and words of Pope John Paul II, well, that's a bit much:
According to Foxman, the pope’s visit to the synagogue was more significant than the private meeting with the Jewish representatives, which he saw as a continuation of a policy began by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, when he visited the Great Synagogue of Rome in 1986.
"When Pope John Paul went to that synagogue he changed the dogma of Catholicism, which believes that Christianity superseded Judaism and that it was the new Judaism," Foxman said. "It was a public statement that Judaism exists, that Judaism lives, and that it has vitality."
Whoa! John Paul II "changed the dogma of Catholicism"? Problem #1: Not possible. Problem #2: It didn't happen. Problem #3: It definitely didn't happen. Here is John Paul II's speech, given on April 13, 1986, and here is the key section:
We are all aware that, among the riches of this paragraph no. 4 of Nostra Aetate, three points are especially relevant. I would like to underline them here, before you, in this truly unique circumstance. The first is that the Church of Christ discovers her "bond" with Judaism by "searching into her own mystery" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.
The second point noted by the Council is that no ancestral or collective blame can be imputed to the Jews as a people for "what happened in Christ's passion" (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.) Not indiscriminately to the Jews of that time, nor to those who came afterwards, nor to those of today. So any alleged theological justification for discriminatory measures or, worse still, for acts of persecution is unfounded. The Lord will judge each one "according to his own works," Jews and Christians alike (cf. Rom 2:6)
The third point that I would like to emphasize in the Council's Declaration is a consequence of the second. Notwithstanding the Church's awareness of her own identity, it is not lawful to say that the Jews are "repudiated or cursed," as it this were taught or could be deduced from the Sacred Scriptures of the Old or the New Testament (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.). Indeed, the Council had already said in this same text of Nostra Aetate, but also in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 16, referring to Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans (11:28-29), that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.
I'm not sure how accurate this translation is (there isn't an English translation of this speech on the Vatican site; here's the Italian translation), as the Vatican's English translation of Nostra Aetate says, "Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." (par 4; emphasis added). Regardless, that description of the Church as the "new people of God" and John Paul II's affirmation of Nostra Aetate expose Foxman's reading as very tendentious, if not downright disingenuous.
There are other ways to try to get Popes to agree with you. This one, succinctly expressed in a letter to the editor, comes from Florida:
Pope Benedict has returned home with the love of the Roman Catholic faithful still ringing in his ears, as Pope John Paul II did before him.
But I can’t help but think that some of the policies of these two traditionalists must have the pope of the 1960’s, Pope John, spinning in his grave.
If Pope John were alive today and confronted with the scourge of AIDS in sub-Sahara Africa and elsewhere, he undoubtedly would proclaim “Given the spread of AIDS on the one hand and the use of condoms on the other, AIDS is by far the greater evil.”
Pope John was very special. ?
Roger M. Sherwood ?
Vero Beach ?
This could be called "putting words in the mouth of..." or "claiming to know the mind of...", but I'd like to call it the "Argument from Retro-active Ex Cathedra Statements That A Pope Would Have Made If Still Alive and He Agreed With Me." Yes, Mr. Sherwood, Blessed John XXIII was special, but not in the way you indicate.
Finally, there is the more common approach, which is not so much an attempt to rewrite the Church's teachings, but to categorically compare hot button issues of the day with the Church's doctrine—and then congratulate yourself on embracing "the degrading slavery of being a child of [your] age," as Chesterton put it. Case in point, an op-ed in the Louisiana State University student newspaper, which calmly meets a multitude of clichés and politically-correct tropes and eagerly surrenders to each one in turn:
My Facebook.com profile says I am a "Cafeteria Catholic" - I choose the aspects of Catholicism I will actually follow while leaving the undesirable scraps off my plate.
Interpretation: I don't eat my vegetables. Back off, Mom! Who do you think you are?
Nevertheless, I am a confirmed Catholic. I may not attend Mass every week or even feel sorry for all of my sins, but I identify myself with the Church and respect its traditions.
Interpretation: Feed me, Mom! But stop giving me vegetables.
The first problem the Church must change is its approach to abortion. I do not intend to condone the practice of abortion - I personally oppose it - but the Church's past threats to excommunicate any abortion rights political leader is abhorrent.
Yes, it's an outrage that people who support the killing of the unborn and who do so in direct violation of Church teaching should face any sort of criticism or consequences. The horror! The suffering! Hey, where's my steak? Hurry up, Mom! I'm starving!
Sure, approximately 46 million unborn children die each year through abortions, according to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform's Web site.
Yeah, sure, whatever. Numbers. Just numbers, Imagine if he had written this: Sure, approximately [number] minorities are killed on the streets each year... Or: Sure, approximately [number] women are raped each year... Or: Sure, approximately [number] children die of starvation each year... I'm not saying he's flippant about abortion; I'm saying he's intellectually and morally stunted.
But the Catholic Church must address its backward views on contraceptives. Ninety-three percent of all abortions conducted in the United States are because the child is unwanted or inconvenient, according to the Web site.
See, it's the Church's fault that people have sex and women get pregnant. And it's the Church's fault that people choose abortion. And it's the Church's fault that people get cancer, people use meth, people fight at soccer games, people go to soccer games, people eat beef, people breathe air, people watch "American Idol", etc., etc. It all makes sense now.
Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective and unrealistic.
That's true if you think abstinence-only sex education should produce great violinists or help kids learn algebra faster. But teaching children the value of abstaining from sex until marriage does seem to have a better chance of reducing abortion than saying, "Hey, have sex and then blame the Church if you get pregnant!"
While the Church may find premarital sex morally reprehensible, it must face reality and concede that contraceptives can help reduce the number of abortions among women who find their pregnancies inconvenient.
Yes, because if we were able to get rid of everything that was an "inconvenience," the world would be such a great place in which to practice things that are convenient for us, like doing whatever we want without having to be responsible for our actions. Welcome to Hugh Hefner Nation! Mom, bring me more steak! Mom! Mom? Where'd she go?
There's some more of this sorry nonsense (about homosexuality and priestettes), but I'll skip to the end:
As a Catholic, it is not easy for me to doubt the policies of my chosen religion, but I feel the Church must address these questions. ... The Church must improve itself in at least these areas to remain a viable refuge for those seeking more in their lives.
Obviously he really struggled and wrestled and valiantly grappled with these issues, but I suspect he stopped doing so once "Big Brother XVIII" came on at 8:00. If he had really, honestly thought about his "policy" recommendations enough, he would have realized what he had to do: go here.
And that, dear reader, concludes this episode of "How To Avoid Serious Consideration of What the Catholic Church Teaches." Next week: "From Tone-Deaf to Mariah Carey Clone In Eight Simple Steps (Singing Talent Not Required and Plastic Surgery is Optional)."
Address during Meeting with Representatives of Other Religions
When he does that, well, he's just following the crowd.
Matthew 23:9
LOL, as if the dissenters need ideas on how to voice their disagreements and offer their ‘solutions’. LOL.
1 Corinthians 4:15
Do the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:15, supersede the command of Christ in Matthew 23:9?
Interesting what happens when Orwellian Religious Police get power in a place like FR.
I fear we are not far behind Wikipedia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.