The Vatican's Terrorism Omission

Let us now try to understand the Vatican’s bizarre policy on terrorism. Recently Pope Benedict XVI condemned terrorist attacks against civilians in Great Britain, Egypt, Iraq, and Turkey. In a pregnant omission – very pregnant in light of the Vatican’s long history of silence in the face of attacks against Jews – the Pope omitted any mention of the country that has suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks against civilians since 9/11, namely, Israel. When the Israeli government understandably protested the omission, the Vatican’s position became even more troubling. It singled out Israel for criticism, saying that that beleaguered nation’s responses to attacks against its civilians was “not always compatible with the rules of international law.” It then went on to say that the Vatican could not protest every Palestinian attack against Jewish civilians if Israel did not always follow international law.

Let’s try to understand what this means. Unless a country is absolutely flawless in its response to terrorism, the Vatican will not condemn terrorism against its civilian citizens. This seems to justify the killing of civilians as a protest against violation of international law. If that “moral” position is not bizarre enough, let us turn to the actual facts. Egypt’s response to terrorism is far, far more violative of international law than Israel’s. Egypt routinely tortures – I mean really tortures to death – suspected terrorists, to say nothing of mere dissidents. Turkey’s record is not all that much better. The U.S. and Great Britain have killed many more civilians in responding to terrorism in Iraq than Israel has done. So even if the Vatican’s statement of principle were morally acceptable – which it surely is not – that principle would in no way justify leaving Israel off a list that includes many worse violators of international law.

Moreover, the Vatican’s snippy condemnation of Israel for its reprisals is particularly untimely. Israel, unique among nations victimized by terrorism, has refrained from any significant reprisals over the past several months, despite the facts that terrorist attacks against its civilians continue. It has made a point of withholding its right to respond in the interests of facilitating peace.

Why, then, did the Vatican deliberately refuse to condemn terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel? I fear it is for the same reason that the Vatican took too long and did too little in protesting against the mass extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany. I suspect that it also has something to do with the Vatican’s love fest with the godfather of international terrorism, Yasser Arafat. Pope Benedict XVI’s good and decent predecessor met with Arafat so often – more often than with almost any other world leader and certainly more often than with any terrorist – that he came to be known as “Arafat’s Pope.”

The truth is that the Vatican has always had a Jewish problem. Today that problem focuses more on the Jewish state than on the Jewish religion. But the Vatican’s perverse refusal to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel raises even broader questions of discrimination.

So enough of the Vatican’s arrogant refusal to be scolded on moral grounds. Listen to its recent statement about Israel’s mild criticism: “The Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from other authority on the tone and content of its own statements.” Well, it better learn to start taking such lessons when it makes immoral and bigoted statements. The days are long gone when the Vatican, or any other religious group, is exempt from outside criticism, especially when it makes political pronouncements which can have the effect of encouraging terrorism. Good Catholics should begin apologizing right now for this most recent manifestation of a double standard against Jewish victims by the Vatican.

A recent fatwa issued by American Muslim leaders might serve as an example to the Vatican. It condemned all suicide bombings as in violation of Islamic law. Certainly Catholic morality demands no less.

Far be it for me to try to teach the Pope something about Catholic theology, but I seem to recall that for centuries Catholic teaching has distinguished between the willful targeting of innocent civilians, on the one the hand, and the inadvertent killing of civilians while pursuing appropriate military targets. The former is always morally prohibited, whereas the latter is permitted under the principle of double effect, unless the number of civilians killed is out of proportion to the military benefits obtained. Under this very Catholic principle, the Pope should always condemn all suicide bombings, and should only condemn disproportionate reprisals. If those principles were applied fairly to all nations, then the Vatican would have to include all terrorist attacks that target Israeli civilians. The Vatican should do that now, without equivocation.

See the link in #198, it's discussed.

There is no "Hell" as Christians understand an eternal damnation with Hell fires.

If you're interested search it from reputable Jewish sites. Like much in Judaism the concepts are debatable.

In other parts of the link you pointed me to, it makes reference to much debate among Jews regarding what happens -- if anything -- in the afterlife (if there is one). It also explains one of Judaism's interpretations of gehenna as being a place of purging (not unlike the Catholic belief of "purgatory"). And it also references that some Jews believe it is possible for a person to merit being "cut off" from the rest of the body of believers in the afterlife.

It seems that there is not a unaminity of belief among Jews as to who gets saved.

That you can say this (assuming you mean what the plain inference of your words says) with a straight face is mind boggling.

I entered the Church on my own initiative precisely because the Catholic Church doesn't engage in missionary activity (in fact, it screams bloody murder about those Fundamentalist Protestants who do). While in the Church I begged them to convert my beloved mother (a poor country girl with a sixth grade education) and they wouldn't do it because "everyone is beautiful just the way they are."

The Catholic Church, just like all the other ancient liturgical churches, grows by sexual reproduction.

So now we've switched from Joan Baez back to Joe Sobran. How many personalities do you have locked in your head?

If the "new and everlasting covenant" isn't authorized by the Holy Torah then the claims of the Catholic Church mean absolutely nothing (they are merely groundless self-assertions). You either didn't read my remarks about the logical fallacy of "affirmation of the consequent" or you are so addicted to that fallacy that you are incapable of thinking otherwise.

So far as I know (and I am by no means an expert) what I wrote is believed by all branches of Judaism. I grew up in (modern) Orthodox congregations for the most part and have heard the same from both Orthodox and Masorti rabbis.

Thank you for the post on righteous gentiles. I think it's important that people understand that Judaism is non-exclusivistic, hence our lack of a need to convert anyone. and the AFAIK unique prohibition on trying to convert anyone.

Hell, the way Christians believe in it, is absent from Judaism. It's not that the term doesn't exist but rather that it's pretty well undefined. One explanation I've heard is separation from G-d, which, to many, would be hell enough.

Salvation, the way Christians understand it, is entirely absent from Judaism.

Would Christians, who worship Jesus as God, be considered violating this law, and thereby merit condemnation to Hell for that act?

One point you're clearly missing: good deeds (mitzvot) are weighed against bad as on a scale at judgement. That means that violating one law does not guarantee condemnation. Whether Christians would be considered to be worshipping a false god is something I'll leave for rabbis and scholars to answer and G-d to decide.

Condemnation to hell is a Christian (not Jewish) concept as well.

It seems that there is not a unaminity of belief among Jews as to who gets saved.

The concept of "saved" is a Christian one, not a Jewish one.

There is uniformity of belief in the mechanism of judgement and in how one is supposed to atone for sin. There pretty much is a uniform belief in ganeden, or heaven, if you prefer. There is no uniform belief of what will be in the afterlife.

Gehenna is really not well defined in Jewish scripture. One explanation I've heard is simply separation from G-d. Another is non-existence.

because the Catholic Church doesn't engage in missionary activity (in fact, it screams bloody murder about those Fundamentalist Protestants who do). While in the Church I begged them to convert my beloved mother (a poor country girl with a sixth grade education) and they wouldn't do it because "everyone is beautiful just the way they are."

I'm beginning to think I misunderstood what you were saying. Are you actually saying that *individuals* within the individual Catholic Church which you attended were not inclined to promote missionary activity? Because I originally thought you were positing that the Catholic Church, as a whole, doesn't engage in missionary activity. http://www.catholicmission.org/

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.