Hate Crimes Against Catholics Increase

NC Register ^ | November 24, 2009

[NYer]

Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.

USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.

The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.

As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.

“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.

“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”

[kosta50]

Not to me. It's like saying of your spouse: "She's a bipedal primate belonging to the species Homo sapiens in Hominidae having a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving." It's descriptive and accurate but insufficient for your well-stated desire to "know exactly who we have that intimate relationship with, to know exaclty who that person is."

That's an accurate observation, but misses the mark. :) When the eastern Christians say they "know' him they think of Christ, the Christ know to the Church. There is no other God. Christ is it. When you see Christ you see the Father.

God is otherwise ineffable and all attempts to figure out the ineffable God (the Truth you are pursuing) are doomed to failure. And worshiping an ineffable God is like worshiping a stone. You can't have a relationship with a stone, or the sun, or some invisible, incomprehensible spirit.

As the Bible says, no one gets to the Father except through Christ. And Chirts is knowable (whether that is a historical Jesus or not is a different story), but knowable as far as the Christ known to the Church of the Seven Councils is concerned, and very real in a character sense. In fact, he is the role model of how to be saved (theosis). become Christ-like and you are saved. Do what he would have done and you are saved (cf Mat 25).

So, while the Church went out of its way to define the incomprehensible Trinity, let alone the ineffable God in his true nature, the Church does not deal the the divine Mystery except through praise and adoration. When it comes to dealing with God, the Church in the East deal exclusively though Christ, and he doe snot have to be described or understood or loved in any strange an incomprehensible way.

[kosta50]

And what is Christ's spirit as separate from His Godhood

Christ's human spirit (soul) is very much separate from his "Goodhood."

[kosta50]

By "pagan" do you mean not monotheistic or is there another more specific definition?

No, I said "monotheistic but pagan in practice." Even Egyptian religion at some point became monotheistic, and is precisely where monotheism began; yet I am sure everyone would consider ancient Egyptian religion pagan.

OT Judaism involved sacrifices just like all other pagan religions. It is essentially barbaric and to a large extent superstitious (that an animal's or man's blood somehow atones for your sins).

The only reason Judaism doesn't practice ritualistic animal sacrifice is because the Temple was destroyed (which was the only place where this could be done); synagogues are simply for prayers.

But the "other Jews," the Samaritans (all 800 of them!), still practice the OT Judaism, with animal sacrifices, and priesthood, since their Temple was not destroyed and is not in Jerusalem (and that was the reason they were not treated as Jews by mainline Judaism until the 19th century). In fact when Jesus chastises Samaritans he mentions that they need to recognize Jerusalem as the place where God is.

[kosta50]

The accounts of a meeting with gods/angelic beings/divine beings are accepted in Judaism and it is interesting that God (the Father? the Son? the Word?) would condescend to meet with anyone./i>

Where is the Spirit? Why is it that western Christians never speak of the spirit as one of the three co-equal hypostates but only of Father and Son?

Anyway, there is only one God in the OT and his spirit is his powerful breath. There is no son, except for Adam. The "sons of God" in the OT are angels, and those who are anointed by God (Israeli kings).

God of the OT meets with his hosts ton find things out. In Job, he asks Satan "where did you come from?" The ancient Hebrew deity is by all accounts not all-seieng and all-knowing. There are parts of the OT where God has to come down to "see" for himself so he may "know!" he tests people so he may know that they will be loyal to him (i.e. Abraham and a slew of others). He regrets making man (Gen 6:6-7), etc. Orin the Garden he is "looking" for Adam saying "where are you?" and so on.

So, the ancient Hebrews did not see their God as "condescending" (humbling) himself to meet with others. He is a micromanager and is in everyone's business, confusing or misleading those he didn't like and helping those he does.

In his mood and manner of going about business he is very human, just immensely more powerful (another pagan characteristic). His meetings are corporate in nature, used to plan strategy and to delegate task (most of the gory stuff is done by angels, by every now and then he uses his breath, some "bad" breath it is!), not merciful condescension.

Christ original mission is to the Jews. Why? They had the Law, they had Tradition, and Rabbis, then what was missing? Why did they need Christ?

You have to read more about Jewish apocalypticism, which becomes part of Pharisiancal mindset following the Maccabean revolt against the hellenistic Syrian ruler. Up until the time of this revolt (circa 160 BC), the Jews believed that bad things happened to God's people for a simple reason: as basically punishment for disobedience.

The Jews of the 2nd century BC have returned to their faith and observed the Sabbath, and the sudden occupation of Syrians made the theology based deserved punishment inconsistent with reality. All of a sudden, bad things happened to God's people when God's people obeyed God!

Specifically, the hellenistic Syrian king was hellbent on making everyone have one religion in the area—Greek! He began persecuting the Jews for their Judaic observances, specifically for circumcision (which the Greeks thought was silly), killing not only those who perfomred it, but the circumcized babies but mothers of circumcised babies as well. This led to a revot otherwise known as the Maccabean revolt.

To explain this sudden misfortune the new religious party, the Pharisees, began to believe that just observing God's laws was not enough. Israel needed a warrior-king who will defeat Gentile enemies and establish the Kingdom of God (euphemism for Israel) on earth, and through whom the God of Israel will be known to everyone (obviously not as a their God, but as someone they should respect out of fear).

This warrior king would be anointed by God (i.e. meshiyah or messiah) and, as all kings of Israel he would be God's favorite son of Israel, i.e. the "son of God."

This is night and day compared to what the Christians made of the whole thing. They don't teach this stuff in Sunday schools!

Anyway, this belief led to further belief that there will be a "final solution" biblical style, with the the resurrection of the dead, etc. besides Pharisees, Essenes were also apocalyptic, and by all indications form the Gospels, Jesus was an apocalyptic Jews as well.

The Sadducees, who were the priests in control of the Temple, of course, did not agree with the apocalypticists and rejected all but the Torah (and I mean Mosaic books) of the Jewish scripture. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead either; ancient Judaism never speaks of any resurrection, but only of a shady life in the underworld (Sheol, or hades in Greek), with varying degrees of comfort or discomfort.

So, that's why Jesus came only for the lost tribes of Israel (i.e. lost to hellenization) and that's why neither he no his disciples had any business going to the gentiles or the hated Samaritans (whom Jesus likens to dogs, which is one of the worst insults in the Middle East!).

[kosta50]

John the Baptist by right of lineage should have been the presiding High Priest. Why was he baptizing in the wilderness?

Because he believed he was the messiah. Of course, the Christians will disagree. But John the Baptist actually has a religious following who trace their roots back tot he first century. John is portrayed in the Gospels as recognizing Jesus as the "One" but his followers do not agree with that. Their memories are different! :)

The fact that he was baptizing people is what made him a bad Sadducee. He didn't make it as a High priest because the Sadducee were not apocalypticists and he was, or that's how he is portrayed. I would say more akin to Maritn Luther of Judaism!

A Jewish friend of mine thinks that the reason Moses was denied entrance to the Promised Land is because he'd been asked to share the "Gospel" with the Gentiles and refused.

What kind of a Jew is he to say that? One of those "Jews for Christ"? The book of Numbers explains the wandeirng. Of course it was a punishment, one for each day the Hebrew spies spent in Canaan. God was offended by their lack of belief that God will protect them.

[Kolokotronis]

“What is the “grace of God”?”

The uncreated energies of God.

[kosta50]

Modern Judaism IS primarily Sadducean, in that even a belief in the afterlife is denied

Rabbnical Judaism of today is a survor of Pharisaical Judaism. They believe in the resurrection of the dead and thew Age to Come.

[kosta50]

Is the example then proving His deity, His human growth, or that He was an exceptional Levite?

Take your pick. But given that Gospels do not teach divine Jesus, I would say the author's intent was the last two.

Why mention his growing at all if he's fully God? No growth required. What is the purpose of the agony in the Garden?

Why mention him as a baby? As far as the Church is concerned, Christology aims to marry the two incompatible concepts of a human Jesus and a divine Word of God (Logos) in one person. The result of Incarnation is Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully human. That means his humanity, save for sin, is no different than yours or mine.

[Kolokotronis]

“And what is Christ’s spirit as separate from His Godhood; how do you explain that?”

Strange as this may sound coming from me, try the Summa, Third Part Art. 5. +Thomas Aquinas does a nice job with that one.

[kosta50]

Depends on which God, no? There clearly is some indication that he is moving to theosis, yet is more than a prophet and not as high as Heavenly Father (the most high God?).

They portray him as the Jewish meshiyah, a mortal anointed by God to be the warrior-king who will reestablish Israel as God's chosen kingdom on earth, not as a lessor God. O focus he ahs all sorts of powers, givne to him by God, so he can convince others that he is truly the meshiayh, not that he is God.

Lesser God is not a Christian concept. Arians believed he was a "lesser" God. In fact, all Christian Apologetics portray him as a lesser God (subrodiantiopnalist theology). At that time (late 2nd and early 3rd century) the major "enemy" was Gnosticism, not Arianism. Everyone was, more or less, Arian.

He was human, but maybe not in the way we are human.

Then he is not fully human. If he was without sin, he was the best human, not necessarily a different human. he would have been subject to all the passions we are subject to.

He never sinned and in a Jewish household that would include respecting his parents, which the story in the temple seems to contradict.

Depends how you interpret it. :)

We are throwing out "doctrine" and trying to get to the essence as captured in the Scriptures, no?

What would that be?

Doctrine gives some clues, but it is political and subject to the unclean hands of men

And what isn't subject to unclean hands of man?

So that his godhood was suppressed until some future date/act?

I don;t think there ever was anything he did that would qualify as his "Godhood". Jesus represents perfect harmony between human nature and God's nature. He never makes a decision that is contrary to his divine nature. Total obedience. Remember that Judaism emphasizes obedience to God, works. In that sens he 'fulfilled" the law perfectly.

That story is perfect, except for one fleeting moment in the Gethsemane when he asks the Father to take his cup away, but then immediately corrects himself.

What other conclusion can you come up with from a plain reading of the text

I can see how the Bible is the source for all sorts of dogmas.

Must we be constrained by monotheism or polytheism as our only choices?

Doesn't monotheism and polytheism cover all possibilities? What else can there be except one or many gods?

If there is a divine hierarchy, yet Jesus achieves theosis thus equaling Heavenly Father - of whom he says they are one - is it common polytheism as practiced in pagan histories?

What divine hierarchy? Jesus did not "become" divine. Where are you pulling this stuff from? LOL!

The three "Persons" of the Godehead is how God is believed by Chirstians to have revealed himself in the economy of our salvation. This does not mean that this is how God really is in his essence. Just how he revealed dhismelf to man. There is no polytheism.

[1010RD]

The uncreated energies of God are then what? Tools? To have the grace of God is to have his uncreated energies. How do the manifest themselves in the persons life?

[kosta50]

Which of the above are you referring to as a later doctrine?

"his mission as 'restorer'/Savior for mankind & baptism"

OK, but don't faith and works go hand in hand. I only practice what I believe

That belief is based on what will benefit you, not necessarily a belief in the divine. That's a faith (trust) that if you do what is right or expected you won't get in trouble. And you may even get a reward.

Atheism doesn't even enter the picture here. In Jesus' time frame, everyone believed in some kind of a god. What Matthew 25 teaches is that faith is not enough; in fact, implicitly, it makes no difference what you believe in. Even the devil believes in God. What Matthew 25 is saying is that matters is doing what Jesus would have done, with the right intention. This is exactly opposite to Paul's teaching that one is saved by faith alone and not the works.

[Kolokotronis]

The uncreated energies of God are then what? Tools? To have the grace of God is to have his uncreated energies. How do the manifest themselves in the persons life?

+Gregory Palamas explains all of this best:

http://frgregory.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-gregory-palamas-on-divine-energies.html

This is distinctly Orthodox theology and is one of the most important points of difference between the West and Orthodoxy.

[kosta50]

The uncreated energies of God are then what? Tools? To have the grace of God is to have his uncreated energies. How do the manifest themselves in the persons life?

Grace in Greek comes from the word χαίρω (chaíro) , meaning joy. Charism, or grace, is that which bestowes joy, kidness, etc. that which 'tames' our animalistic fallen nature.

[1010RD]

The majority of Jews today in both Israel and America are at best Sadducean in outlook and beliefs. Only 17% keep kosher in America and 19% don’t even believe in God.

Look at their fundamental beliefs - Sadducean all the way.

[kosta50]

The majority of Jews today in both Israel and America are at best Sadducean in outlook and beliefs

For what it's worth, Wikipedia (with my emphasis):

The Sadducees (or Tzedukim) were a group of Jews opposed to the Pharisees  (today's Rabbinical Jews), founded in the second century BC.  They ceased to exist sometime after the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem (Herod's Temple) in 70AD.

Only 17% keep kosher in America and 19% don’t even believe in God

So, what does that have to do with Sadducess? Where are you getting this from?

[1010RD]

Wikipedia gets it wrong. Look at what they believed. Sadducees were Hellenized and modern; rejected the resurrection; rejected angels and spirits; and were highly political. They were religious in name only (like the Kennedy’s) as a political convenience. More a party or class/caste among the Jews than a practice of worship or belief. They were into rights, power and privileges. They’d be Democrats today, but (surprise) they are. Most Jews today are liberals.

Wikipedia is abusing the word Pharisee. A Pharisee of Jesus’ time would barely believe what’s happened to their religion.

[kosta50]

Wikipedia gets it wrong

Not in this case. I suggest you consult other sources, such as Jewish Encyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Britannica, or any other respectable source.

Sadducees were Hellenized and modern; rejected the resurrection; rejected angels and spirits; and were highly political

They were not Hellenized. They were politicians and cooperation with Hellenistic rulers of the Middle East was the "realpolitik" of the day. Their beliefs had nothing to do with modenrism. They trace their roots way back to the 9th or 10th century BC. They rejected resurrection because it is was never the Jewish belief until after the emergence of apolcapyptic Judaism and the Maccabean revolt.

Modern day Jews, consistent with their Pharisaical roots, believe in afterlife and the resurrection of the dead. That makes them anything but Sadducees in belief as you asserted earlier.

Wikipedia is abusing the word Pharisee

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

A Pharisee of Jesus’ time would barely believe what’s happened to their religion.

That's quite true. Rabbinical Judaism "evolved" just as Christianity did, into something different from what it was in the 1st century. What we see today is a product of 2,000 years of man-made "corrections."

Heck, even this country is not the same compared to what it was mentally, socially, racially, politically, technologically, religiously, etc. 40 to 50 years ago. That's one generation! The labels are the same, but that's about all. If you went back to 1959 or 1969 you would not recognize this place.

[annalex]

taking literally something that obviously is not literal

Indeed metaphors abound in the scripture. No, St. John is not a literal torch and Jesus is not a literal door.

In order to understand the scripture we need to examine both immediate and extended contexts. With most metaphors we easily find that the literal interpretation fails, because nothing in the context supports it. Jesus does not enter into an argument whether or not St. John the Baptist is a literal lamp with anyone; no ceremony is attached to St. John being a lamp; the Early Church did not understand it literally.

However, with "this is my body" line, the context points to the literal meaning:

Whether or not the Eucharistic elements are purely symbolic representation of Jesus is discussed directly in John 6, and Jesus insists that His body is "food indeed". It is a prolonged discussion that results in a loss of a group of the disciples who leave over that issue. It is linked to the prefigurement of the Eucharist in the mannah and to the ascention of Christ to His heavenly throne. It is therefore not a single-time metaphor like the "lamp", the "door" and a yoke animal that Jesus compares Himself to.

In 1 Cor. 11 the supernatural essence of the Eucharist is clearly taught, as the sin of not discerning the body of Christ in it (1 Cor. 11:27-30) is described as leading to excommunication and spiritual death. Emblems do not render judgement.

The Early Church did not understand it metaphorically. While the happy meal that St. Paul condemns was an error, it was an actual meal. When St. Paul corrects the Corinthians he does not teach them to treat is metaphorically as a reminder of Christ, but rather he teaches that the body is right there with them.

At the Last Supper Jesus does not speak of a thing that would be difficult to understand and so requires a metaphor. He presents to the disciples His future suffering, explains to them His Kingdom where they will eat (sic!) with him again, and prepares them for the work of building His Church. His language is plain and straightforward: this and this will happen: behave like this, don't behave like that. But among His instructions is the command to "do this" (Luke 22:19). Do what? As He instructs he shows the bread and says "this is my body". This is how a priest "does this" today:

This is not metaphorical talk, in context.

What of the living water of John 4? The gift of Baptism that Christ gave us is real, not metaphorical water. It does give eternal life and we do not need a second baptism. Neither is that a pure metaphor. The two fundamental sacraments of the Church are promised us in these two Johannine chapters.

[annalex]

there is nothing sillier than when two groups that believe all sorts of magical stuff begin to call each others' beliefs "silly."

Name calling like that does not amount to a serious argument, and a rational argument is possible about the Real Presence using the very method that the Protestants profess to be dispositive: that analysis of the Scripture in context. On this score, Protestantism fails: John 6, the Last Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels, the direct teaching on the Eucharist being a supernatural event in 1 Cor. 11 are not discussed together, as a responsible exegete would, but rather minimized to allegory of faith that went awry, a show and tell during a meal, and a call to general civility. That won't do.

There are apparent supernatural events in the scripture that we cannot similarly discuss in depth. It is possible that Balaam's donkey really talked and it is possible that it was a literary device to describe the scene. Nothing in the scripture points to one interpretation and not another. Likewise, nothing in Christian theology depends on the Holy Spirit being in the form of as dove or any other particular visible form.

But this one we can discuss like rational people. It is a pity those who protest the established understadning would not take their burden of proof seriously or honestly.