+ Excellent work, as usual, since there were a lot of dots that needed connecting. I think the anti-semitism of the LeFevrites has always turned me against their cause promoting the Latin Mass, which is unfortunate since the latter is no doubt good thing. As a convert (over 20 years in the Church) I've never attended an indult Mass, and I confess the anti-semitic proclivities of many of its loudest promotors has kept me away. Very unfortunate.
Without reference to the sins of this particular outfit, I'd like to pose a question--one of those that tends to make people nervous, and for good reason. With a last name like Kantor, it's a bit easier to get away with it than it might be for some.
What precisely IS Anti-Semitism? I mean, stepping away from the Zeitgeist, what precisely is it that we condemn under this term?
I ask because it seems to function not just as an analytical term, but a term that is used to close debate, like "McCarthyite."
On the one hand, there's something obviously and hideously wrong with racialist stuff like Nazism. On the other hand, it shouldn't be condemned out of hand if someone thinks that Zionism was a bad idea, should it? Though opposition to Zionism may have an anti-Semitic component, it needn't.
In between, there are some murky waters. Can one be of the opinion that there is something in Masoretic Judaism that tends toward hostility to Christianity? I fully understand the nervousness that a question like this begets, but it's still something that ought in the end to be faced.
Obviously, Nostra Aetate and other texts need to read and read well before attempting a good answer. But it seems that we are entering a time when even the Pope is beginning to call us to a much deeper attempt to reconcile the documents of the Council with prior teaching.
So what do you all think? Do we have a working definition of "Anti-Semitism: the Sin" from a Catholic point of view? And do we have a position on what is doctrinal and binding as opposed to prudential judgment or application of broader teaching?
I touched on this matter in an essay a couple years ago (Jewish Christian Relations: Mixed Signals from the Vatican -- a relevant excerpt:
. . . Fr. Denis Fahey adhered to a specific and personal definition of anti-semitism as that comes in quite handy for radical traditionalist critics to dismiss accusations that they personally dislike the Jews. As [John] Vennari says in a recent article in Catholic Family News:
One of the finest writers who dealt with the subject of anti-Semitism was the eminent scholar, Father Denis Fahey. In his 1953 book The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Father Fahey discussed the true nature of the word. He explains that "anti-Semitism" means hatred of Jews as a race and as such is sinful. "The Jews, however," says Fahey "use the word to designate any form of opposition to themselves, and they strive persistently to associate irrationality and want of balance with the term. They evidently want the world to believe that anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less deranged."
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, "anti-semitism" was coined in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr to designate anti-Jewish campaigns in central Europe at that time. Although it is a misnomer (implying discrimination against all semites), it is commonly understood to mean "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group" (Merriam-Webster).
In 1964 Fr. Edward Flannery published Anguish of the Jews: The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty Three Centuries of Anti-Semitism [probably the best history and explication of the issue that I'm aware of], according to whom:
The distinguishing mark of anti-semitism is a hatred, contempt and stereotyping of the Jewish people as such. . . . it should be distinguished therefore from indiscriminate hostility to which all peoples and groups have been prey; from anti-Judaism, a theological construct, with which it has often been intermingled; and from anti-Jewish manifestations that may lead to -- or in history have led to -- but do not possess the attributes specified above.
Flannery's book documents many kinds of anti-semitism, from the classical anti-semitism of Greeks & Romans (motivated by offense at the Jewish refusal to conform to the religious and social standards of Hellenistic culture) to the religious anti-semitism and anti-Judaism of the Christian Church (manifesting itself in persecution, pogroms, massacres, social degradations, and forced baptisms) to anti-semitism of modern times (motivated by economic resentment and racial hatred, and culminating in the Holocaust).
The Anguish of the Jews, revised and updated in 1984, is considered to be a classic history of the subject. Upon reading Flannery's history one can only conclude that Fahey's equasion of anti-semitism with racial hatred, while etymologically correct, is gravely insufficient.
On the other hand, it shouldn't be condemned out of hand if someone thinks that Zionism was a bad idea, should it? Though opposition to Zionism may have an anti-Semitic component, it needn't.
Opposition to Zionism is not in itself anti-semitism, although I think if you examine Michael Hoffman II and related folks you encounter something far greater than mere disagreement with the state of Israel -- more along the lines of a resurrection of Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy-theorizing and hate-mongering.
I bought several IHS books on, I think, Christopher Blossser's recommendation.
I'd recommend "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism" by Amintore Fanfani.
But I did find "Action" by Jean Ousset a little disturbing in the places where it appeared to advocate support for military coups in France.
I think you guys need to make up your minds as to whether Sharpe et al are right wing or left wing extremists. Your writing appears to confuse the two.
It would help the rest of us if you could quote the things in their writings which you think are really damning. Your post above is rather long winded and confusing with lots of guilt by association and quotes that can be interpreted in various ways and don't appear to be nearly as damning as you think they are.
One can't help but wonder if the "neo-conned" books have touched a raw nerve amongst some Catholic Iraq Invasion supporters. Maybe the reaction against IHS is motivated, at least subsconciously, by this ?
Looking forward to reading more on this.
God Bless
"I'd recommend "Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism" by Amintore Fanfani."
Just to keep Fanfani's name from getting tarred, he was a Christian Democrat and Italian PM after WWII. His book was favorably reviewed on Townhall.com, which I believe would have noted any real anti-Jewish sentiments.
Jeff,
I think anti-semitism is a racially based hatred of Jews because they are Jews. As opposed to say a suspicion of some Jews because they are capitalists or bankers or a political opposition to Zionism.
One of the problems is that there are some Zionist Jews who interpret any political criticism of the state of Israel as anti-semitism.
And another is that there are some anti-semites and fascists who pose as anti-zionists, as Christopher alludes to above.
God Bless
Here in Australia, the National Civic Council has been accused of similar sins. It came out of Bob Santamaria's Democratic Labor Party, and is strongly traditionalist. Unfortunately, it seems to have been infiltrated by people associated with La Rouche's Citizens' Electoral Council, which holds to all kinds of conspiracy theories with Jews at the centre of them.
I wonder if there is any formal connexion?
For those of you who are not familiar with the Australian political scene in the 1950s and 60s, Bob Santamaria lead a revolt in the left-of-centre Labor Party and formed the Democratic Labor Party. He did this because of concerns about communist infiltration of, and sympathies within, the Labor Party. His splitting a large part of the Catholic vote away from the Labor Party enabled the conservative Liberal-Country Coalition to hold power for 16 years, but largely achieved his goal of reducing communist influence in this country. His influence in wider society is largely gone, but the NCC's 'AD 2000' magazine is still distributed in many parishes, and any (ironic) infiltration of the group by extremist elements is deeply troubling.
+ Excuse my naivete, but why does one have to differentiate between left-wing and right-wing extremism? They both end up in totalitarianism. Hitler and Stalin had two different angles of attack, but both ended up in the same place.
I am somewhat appalled at the way that some here wish to tiptoe around anti-semitism and hide behind definitions. The Jews are our Elder Brothers in the faith and should receive the same response in love as any other people. They have a portion of the truth, like many others outside the Church, and will only be drawn to Christ through love, mutual respect (and, of course, grace).
Christopher,
I think Matthew Anger just lost me here :-
The same issue confronted me in the Catholic clash of views over the US intervention in Iraq. I wasn't bothered by level-headed war critics, among whom I count many friends. On the other hand, there were individuals who let their rhetoric run away from them, sounding more like subversives or pacifists than genuine conservatives.
http://
fringewatcher.blogspot.co...ubversives.html
So, if one is against the war, then either one is a member of the "genuine conservatives" or else one is a member of the "subversives or pacifists" ?
I can't see how this kind of statement is likely to engender a whole lot of common ground between Anger and Pacifists.
God Bless
but why does one have to differentiate between left-wing and right-wing extremism?
Because IHS can't be both.
Either they are right wing extremists or they are left wing extremists or they are neither.
A criticism of IHS which accuses them of being both right wing extremists and left wing extremists is not consistent.
Blosser and Anger need to make up their minds on which IHS is accused of.
God Bless
Hello Chris
I bought several IHS books on, I think, Christopher Blossser's recommendation
I've only recommended one, which was Fanfani's, and that by way of a few people who thought it was pertinent to our conversation over at The Church & the Liberal Tradition.
I think you guys need to make up your minds as to whether Sharpe et al are right wing or left wing extremists. Your writing appears to confuse the two.
Well, that's just the thing -- Derek Holland have a past history with militant 'right wing' fascism (International Third Position) which in the 80's got a little cozy with a Libyan dictator; on the other hand, Jon Sharpe's commentary on 9/11 seems a blend of left-wing pacifism and Jewish conspiracy theorizing ("Judeo-Masonry"); and in 2001 the 'Legion of St. Louis' was posting to a Final Conflict [racist/nationalist/skinhead] mailing list. Later IHS is founded, publishing traditional Catholic works by Chesterton and Belloc on one hand, books on the history of 'Christian Socialism' on the other, and the Neoconned series which bridges the gap between the secular left and 'paleoconservative' / "traditionalist" right with a few Catholic Worker pacifists thrown in.
In other words, they're a bit hard to peg.
It would help the rest of us if you could quote the things in their writings which you think are really damning. Your post above is rather long winded and confusing with lots of guilt by association and quotes that can be interpreted in various ways and don't appear to be nearly as damning as you think they are.
This post is essentially not about Neo-Conned (although it would be interesting to observe to what extent the publisher's ideological views determined their selection of contributors to the anthology -- but that's another topic). But it does worry me, and I think should be of concern, that Sharpe and Holland have these extremist ideological connections. In terms of what's wrong with Michael Hoffman II, feel free to browse his works. The fact that Sharpe finds Hoffman's work on the Jews credible should, I think, throw up a warning sign, along with associations with Bishop Williamson and the SSPX -- is it enough for Holland to simply describe himself as "a student of alternative political movements"? Or to describe Bishop Richard Williamson as simply "a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church"?
So yes, I think these are legitimate concerns.
[Kevin Jones]: Just to keep Fanfani's name from getting tarred, he was a Christian Democrat and Italian PM after WWII. His book was favorably reviewed on Townhall.com, which I believe would have noted any real anti-Jewish sentiments.
Just to clarify, I removed Fanfani's book from my website on account that I wanted to sever ties w. IHS Press while I investigated the ties unearthed by Matt Anger -- not to cast aspersions on Fanfani himself. I just wasn't comfortable linking to IHS Press given their background.
Christopher,
Thanks for your kind reply.
You may well be onto something. I'd encourage you to pursue it and see if you can find anything more concrete. At the moment, it's a bit nebulous - stuff like "they're a bit hard to peg".
I think there are people in my parish who would describe Bishop Richard Williamson as "a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church". I have some sympathy with the SSPX and I hope and pray that the Holy Father would lift the excommunications and grant an indult for any priest to use the Tridentine mass. I think an injustice was done to the SSPX and they do make some good points, although mixed in with much that is simply wrong and contrary to Ecumenical Council.
God Bless
Ed Peters, noted canonist and blogger, has a brief contribution in Neoconned, but his piece merely considers the canonical issues surrounding Bishop Botean's statement about participation in the War.
http://tinyurl.com/m8yd4
I'm convinced he'd be appalled by some of the connections of the publisher(s) of that book.
It is insufficient to define antisemitism on a racial basis excluding paranoia based on perceived political or financial manipulation.
If you are suspicious of Jews, brand them Christ-killers, think they are as a group under condemnation because of the actions of some of their ancestors, if you believe them to be involved in secret cabals manipulating world politics and economics, then you are an antisemite whether you believe that they are a separate race or not.
As to the question of whether the folks at hand are left-wing or right-wing extremists, this just goes to show the inadequacy of the labels.
It is quite wrong for people to associate "nazis" with "right wing," or conservative. Nazis, as are all facists, another variety of Socialism. Hense making them Left. Communists or Anarchists see facists as "right wing" as the facists are to the right of communists and anarchists. This does not make them on the "right wing." Actually facism has more in common wit h hardcore socialism than anything else. This is especially true if you look past the racial element of the Nazis, or the Facists in Italy.
This is the reason that "liberals" can ally with Neo-Nazis without being hypocritical, as they are all socialists. The use of "facist" or "nazis" to describe conservatives comes from the negative conotations that those words have in the post-WWII world. It has little to do with the actual ideology.
Christopher,
I applaud you for this post. It has taken a lot of research and effort to publish a post such as this. We had been talking about this topic since it was first brought to your attention. Continue to keep us updated on what you discover. I think its very fair and reasonable to say that neither you, Stephen Hand of TCRnews.com, or myself are racist or "anti-semites." In fact, I doubt anyone is that is commenting on this post. This is a very important important point to make before I proceed with some further comments.
To begin with, I agree with Christ Sullivan.
Secondly, let's review some basics of Moral Theology and/or Ethics. It's very important to do so when dealing with this topic. None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books. You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so.
Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
Thank you for this work. It DEEPLY disturbs me to even think there could be any such connection. John Sharpe and IHS need to continue to respond. Anti-Semitism is evil. Period. Those who participate in it commit sin. I came back to faith through the witness of a jewish friend who had met "Jeshua" as Messiah.I grew up in a Jewish town and was influenced by Monsignor Arthur Klyber's writings. I opposed the Iraqi incursion as NOT capable of being justified under any "Just War" analysis. I contributed a chapter to an anthology that I still hope has helped many to analyze the entire war.
I am sorry, but participating in a chapter with the kooks at IHS press is like adding an article that maybe of substance, in an Ayrian Nation Magazine.....for your own sake, distance yourself from this crowd.
I certainly will do so having been made aware of these disturbing possibilities. I have no problem disassociating with any group if I find that they are involved in positions that I cannot be identified with.
None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic.
Sorry, David, but that's just false. There are some contributors, not all, that peddle antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Justin Raimondo, of antiwar.com, is one. He even has a webpage devoted to the theme of Israel's prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks:
http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
Maurizio Blondet is a contributor, and another purveyor of such filth. Alongside his own conspiratorial theorizing, his press also publishes the notorious work of I.B. Pranaitis, pseudo-scholar of the Talmud.
http://www.effedieffe.com/fdf/l2cf.html
What I think we can all agree with is that Deacon Keith Fournier, Stantley Hauerwas, Amintore Fanfani, G.K. Chesterton, & Hillaire Belloc are not anti-semites. Neither is PJB for that matter.
Show me what Justin Raimondo or Maurizio Blondet wrote specifically in these books that was anti-semitic. Even if you can prove this, which I highly doubt you can, this in no way implicates Fournier, Hauerwas, etc.
And the bottomline it's still moral and ethical to buy and read any of these books.
My thanks to David.
Even if what is being alleged is true- and I call on John Sharpe and all associated with IHS Press to respond to any legitimate inquiry- it is disconcerting to see the contributors to this book impugned simply because they wrote chapters on an issue of great importance.
Anti-Semitism is evil and any participation in it is sin.
I'm not impuning, nor do I think Chris is impuning, individual contributors to those two Neoconned books. I've already said that nothing in Ed Peter's contribution to the book is problematic in the least.
And it could very well be that Raimondo's contribution and Blondet's contribution to the Neoconned books were not antisemitic.
But those two people have clearly written other things that were outrageously antisemitic. I've given links to them. You can investigate those materials at your leisure.
Dear Mr. Blosser,
Thank you for this substantive report. I had much more I wished to write, but wishing neither to give offense nor create scandal let my thanks suffice. It is heartfelt and deeply appreciated.
shalom,
Steven
To begin with, I agree with Christ Sullivan.
I assume you mean 'Chris', unless Mr. Sullivan has a Messianic complex that I'm unaware of. ;-)
None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books.
I would not infer that the Catholic authors put forth by IHS Press in general -- G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc. -- are in any way racist/anti-semitic.
At the same time, I am not prepared to make a general absolution regarding the members of the SSPX published under IHS Press' 'Traditionalist' imprint (Richard Williamson, for example, has a documented history of anti-semitism); nor the contributors to the Neo-Conned series, insofar as I have not undertaken a study or critique of each author -- the subject of which is tangential to the purpose of this post. While there are contributors to the series that have raised concerns about their perspectives on the Jews (E. Michael Jones, Joseph Sobran), as I recognized "there were also good Catholics who supported this project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in endorsement. Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations of its publishers?"
You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Mr. Sharpe and Derek Holland are not likely going to volunteer their financial records to Matt Anger, myself, or anybody else who have noted their past involvement in questioanble projects.
It does remain the case, however, that the publishers of IHS have a history of involvement in ideological movements and/or the propogation of ideas that would warrant the concern of mainstream Catholics. As Matt Anger demonstrates, Legion of St. Louis was still in operation past the time IHS Press was founded, and there was literature sold by the LSL that should be of concern to any faithful Catholic.
Honestly, had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis but had repudiated the opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and the activities of the LSL prompted the investigation and the post.
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so. Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
In my opinion, Anger's investigation of "Third Positionist neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles" brings to light issues that merit greater attention. I think questions should be asked about Sharpe's connection to the Legion of St. Louise
That's not an "imposition" but a judgement on my part, and you are certainly free to give consideration to this investigation and determine how best to proceed.
It is irrelevent if your comments do not contain anti semitic rhetoric. Common sense dictates that you should be concious of the crowd you keep, and you should not associate with the kooks at IHS.....their denial is lame.
http://metimes.com/articles/norm...23-095108-
3757r
Anti Semitism has consequences
Gang leader confesses to grisly murder of French Jew
February 23, 2006
ABIDJAN -- A Paris gang leader was arrested overnight in Abidjan and has confessed to the kidnap, torture and murder of a young French Jewish man, Ivorian investigators said on Thursday, in a case that has horrified France.
Youssouf Fofana, 25, who fled to Ivory Coast shortly after the dying Ilan Hamili was found on February 11, could be extradited back to France by the end of the day, according to French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"He has French nationality. He has been arrested by the Ivorian police. [French] police investigators are on the scene, so we believe he could be repatriated to France in the coming hours," Villepin told Canal Plus television, referring to Fofana. "This is an odious crime, and it is therefore important that justice be rapidly carried out," he said.
However, Abidjan state prosecutor Raymond Tchimou was quoted by the French daily Le Monde as saying that the process could take longer.
"Extradition can be a drawn-out process. We need to get all the documents together ... We will go as quickly as we can. He could be back in France by the end of the week," Tchimou was quoted as saying.
Ivorian police said that Fofana - a convicted petty criminal of Ivorian origin - had admitted taking part in Halimi's kidnap and murder. But they said that "he denies any anti-Semitic dimension" to the crime.
Halimi, a 23-year-old telephone salesman, went missing in late January after being lured into a trap by a woman. He was held and tortured for three weeks in a poor multi-ethnic suburb of Paris by a gang that sent ransom demands to his family.
Ten days ago he was dumped beside a railway line just south of Paris city center. Naked, bound and gagged, his body bore horrific injuries and he died on the way to hospital.
The crime struck horror in France's 500,000-strong Jewish community, where it was widely assumed that Halimi had been targeted because of his Jewishness.
After initial reluctance, the French authorities earlier this week said that they, too, believe that anti-Semitism was part of the gang's motives. On Tuesday the investigating magistrate heading the case opened the way for aggravated charges of racial hatred against gang members.
By Thursday a total of 13 people had been placed under judicial investigation in Paris, the latest being the concierge of the building in which Halimi was held.
In a growing climate of national outrage at the killing, President Jacques Chirac and Villepin were to attend a memorial service for Halimi later on Thursday at the capital's main synagogue. A silent demonstration through Paris city center is planned for Sunday.
Chirac telephoned Halimi's parents on Tuesday to promise them that "everything shall be done to make sure those responsible for this act of barbarity are traced, caught and punished".
Investigators believe that the gang had made several failed attempts to extort money.
According to interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy, four out of six previous targets were Jewish, who were chosen because of the belief that "Jews have money".
Press commentators on Thursday universally described the identification of Jews with money as an insidious and classic form of anti-Semitism.
"The whole nature of this affair - the combination of gangland criminality with exceptional sadism and a brute anti-Semitic instinct that equates Jews and money - gives it an extraordinary character that inspires both revulsion and dread," said the leftwing newspaper Liberation.
"Hatred of Jews has left the category of the unacceptable to become something normal - especially in the eyes of many young people," it said.
Excuse my naivete, but why does one have to differentiate between left-wing and right-wing extremism? They both end up in totalitarianism. Hitler and Stalin had two different angles of attack, but both ended up in the same place.
This is a common but very erroneous perception. The Nazis were not the opposite of the communists but instead were themselves socialists. That is why the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Likewise, Mussolini's fascists were not the opposite of the communists either. There were differences between the three but the idea that they were on opposite sides is something that is uncritically accepted by virtually everyone.
If we are talking about government structures and recognizing the existence in all views of some kind of governing structure posit on opposing sides of a "spectrum" totalitarianism and libertarianism. For more on this matter, see this thread:
The Logical Fallacy of the "Communist-Fascist" Political Spectrum Theory
"Strip away the ideological pretenses, the sexed-up 'intelligence,' and the 'patriotic' window-dressing, and what you see is the naked reality of Israel's fifth column in America."
Thus says Mr. Raimondo on page 121 of Neoconned! Again.
http://tinyurl.com/mtf95
response to Matt
IHS appears to be a small boutique house that republishes some wonderful works related to Catholic Social Teaching.I have some of their beautifully presented books.I love the whole of Catholic Social Teaching. If they are otherwise, let it all come out.
IHS appears to be a small boutique house that republishes some wonderful works related to Catholic Social Teaching. I have some of their beautifully presented books. I love the whole of Catholic Social Teaching. If they are otherwise, let it all come out.
"The WHOLE of Catholic Social Teaching?" -- Bill Cork raised an interesting question on his blog:
A point to make--IHS Press was founded to provide books that cover the social teachings of the Church. Interesting that it doesn't have teachings of Pope Leo XIII or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Granted, the focus of IHS Press is on the Catholic Social Doctrine of the early 20th Century. But I would pose that an appreciation of 'Catholic Social Doctrine' absent Vatican II or the social encyclicals of John Paul II is somewhat impoverished, especially now that we have the Compendium under Benedict XVI.
Dear Mr Fournier,
I agree with you in regard to Catholic Social Teaching, as long as it is not Liberation Theology, but it seems to me that IHS Press has been exposed. The silence from the owners is deafening. Many of the public domain books that they reprint are found on the net, ebay, or abebooks.com
Take care.
Matt
Dear Matt
I agree with you on Liberation theology as well. If there is silence, it is indeed foreboding! I am going to write to IHS myself. I am sure other contributors like myself will be equally incensed over all of this.
Anti-semitism of any sort is evil and knowing participation in it is sin!
Deacon Fournier
To Christopher
The Compendium is a gift and a treasure.I have written on it on a couple of sites. I just contributed a chapter to a "Study Guide" that Priests for Life will be publishing as well.
Deacon Fournier
This is a common but very erroneous perception. The Nazis were not the opposite of the communists but instead were themselves socialists.
This misses the point. I wasn't saying Nazi's and Communists were opposites, only that "left" and "right" labels are meaningless when the end-game is totalitarianism. Even most of the libertines end up telling others what to do.
Why this is relevant is because most/all of the bad guys of the 20th century were dictators in various get-ups. Where they often intersected was in their choice of who to exterminate, which often ended up being Jews -- and anyone with enough moral rectitude to call them [the dictators] evil.
The insidiousness of the anti-semitic undercurrent Christopher has flushed out of the undergrowth here is that some of these authors want to smack-down evil while winking over the "understandable" desire to bully the Jews.
Now the question is: can one break bread with anti-semites and otherwise politely discuss "common ground."
"Now the question is: can one break bread with anti-semites and otherwise politely discuss "common ground."
That really is the question, and I say NO, you cannot. It is akin to finding common ground on abortion, which would be like negoiating with the Waffen SS on how many Jews were to be executed that day....... to have any dialogue, or be associated with the likes of David Duke....come on, this is a no brainer
Chritopher,
You're absolutely right to comment on the whole of Catholic Social Teaching, including the Compendium. But I don't see that it counts against IHS if they don't publish all the books. They seem to concentrate on out of print books not available elsewhere.
"Strip away the ideological pretenses, the sexed-up 'intelligence,' and the 'patriotic' window-dressing, and what you see is the naked reality of Israel's fifth column in America."
I don't see this a proof of anti-semitism at all. Simply that Israel has operatives in America (as do all foreign powers) which pursue it's interests. It isn't any secret that Israel supported the Gulf Wars.
can one break bread with anti-semites
If this means celebrate the Holy Mass with them then the answer is yes, as it is with all sinners. Even Judas was physically present at the first mass, as Christ wanted him to be.
There is nothing at all wrong with the term "Liberation Theology". It is orthodox Catholic teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "Instruction on certain aspects of the Theology of Liberation" :-
In itself, the expression "theology of liberation" is a thoroughly valid term: it designates a theological reflection centered on the biblical theme of liberation and freedom, and on the urgency of its practical realization.
The Theology of Liberation is part of Catholic Social Teaching, although not everything done under it's name was completely orthodox.
God Bless
Christopher,
Thanks for your hard work and please continue to follow this and keep us updated on what you uncover.
I think the third essay http://web.archive.org/web/20011.../
wtcattack3.htm clearly shows anti-semitism and Jewish conspiracy theorising on what appears to be some kind of archive of the Legion of St Louis website :-
Commentary on the geopolitical situation of 2001 can be neither complete nor sufficient if it fails to take into account the Jewish Nation. The temporal power that the Jews have achieved since, picking a somewhat arbitrary date, 1789, is both pervasive and relatively unchallenged. Some readers will doubtless call this extremism, anti-Semitism, and, God-forbid, some strange brand of Nazi fanaticism. On the contrary. It is simply a fact. The forces of high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally Jewish aim.
The author of the article does not seem to appear with it.
Do we know for sure that Sharpe actually wrote it ?
God Bless
[Chris Sullivan]: You're absolutely right to comment on the whole of Catholic Social Teaching, including the Compendium. But I don't see that it counts against IHS if they don't publish all the books. They seem to concentrate on out of print books not available elsewhere.
The musing wasn't pertinent to the issues of this post, but it is an interesting tangent -- can the 'social teaching of the Catholic Church' be essentially reduced to the distributism of the 1930's and an anti-capitalist stance? Or does it also encompass, say, John Paul II's encyclicals (Centesimus Annus and its qualified advocacy of the 'business-economy'?) Is there an interpretation of 'Catholic social doctrine' make room for both the Catholic Worker and the Catholic on Wall Street?
These are legitimate questions, but probably worth exploring at a later date and not on this post.
"can one break bread with anti-semites" -- I think what GSK meant was whether one could politely discuss "common ground" with those who propogate "Third Positionist" ideology and an anti-Judaism that is wholly contrary to the gospel?
Now, I'll reiterate here that of course, criticism of Zionism isn't anti-semitism per se. On the other hand, if you contribute to a publication like 'Jewish Tribal Review' (E. Michael Jones) or view everyday affairs through the distorted lens of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy in a manner reminiscent to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, there's definitely something there that warrants concern.
John Sharpe isn't the first traditionalist to fall victim to this kind of worldview. As substantially documented by Fr. Loughnan (see "The JEWS" and ANTI-SEMITISM"), anti-semitism is a bane to Catholic traditionalism and a severe impediment to any possible reunification with Rome. We ignore it or dismiss it at our peril.
The author of the article does not seem to appear with it. Do we know for sure that Sharpe actually wrote it ?
Given that Sharpe is the known author of 'Part I' and 'Part II' of the 9/11 commentary published by the LSL, I'd wager that he is. But if he isn't, as founder and chief editor for the Legion and its newsletter, he would take some responsibility for its appearance.
Christopher,
According to http://web.archive.org/web/20011...nofstlouis.com/
, the third part is an official Legion of St Louis statement.
I think this part is pretty chilling and conclusive evidence of anti-semitism :-
The forces of high finance, government, and the media have been in largely Jewish hands for some time now; we should therefore expect that the direction in which the world is guided by those forces (or at least in which those forces attempt to guide the world) largely corresponds to a generally Jewish aim.
I've never understood Catholic anti-semitism. Don't they know that Christ, Mary and all the apostles were and are Jews ? The eucharist itself is Jewish. And so are we.
God Bless
One must ask the following question when facing a moral or ethical problem. What act has occurred or is occurring? The act we are referring to in our case is the advertising, buying and reading of IHS Press books. Two books are specifically mentioned, Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) and Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. I would argue that buying and reading these two books is a good act, at the very minimum a neutral act, not an evil one. It is good b/c reading them informs the intellect. Unless one can prove that anti-semitism is explicit throughout these works, you cannot claim this is an evil act. Therefore it is moral and ethical as a faithful Catholic to advertise, read and buy these books.
Let us add another consideration. What if we advertise and buy these books through a secondary source. In other words, we advertise and buy them through Amazon. IHS Press receives only the wholesale price of the books. Can you prove that this income is being used for immoral purposes? No, you cannot. You must be able to prove evil, which you cannot and this is essential in this case. Even if you could, one is sufficiently remote from the evil that it is permissible to advertise, buy and read these books.
David,
I agree there's nothing wrong with Fanfani's book. I can't comment on Neo-Conned because I've never read it (the statements of Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger are enough to convince me the war was against Catholic teaching).
But I think we do need to be aware of the agendas being pushed in the Catholic world (be they by Weigel, IHS or whomever).
I recommended IHS to members of our Justice and Peace Group. Unless I'm convinced IHS are genuine (and it isn't looking good for them right now) I won't be recommending them again.
God Bless
I think one of the problems with the Neo-Conned type of analysis is that it attempts to uncover the motives behind others' actions. This is always fraught with danger because ultimately we never know others motives for sure. Only God can know that.
This always tends to alienate a certain number of people because they don't accept the given analysis of motives.
It's way better to simply concentrate on what the Catholic Church teaches and whether the act conforms or doesn't conform with the teaching. On many questions of Catholic social teaching, this will be largely a matter of opinion on which Catholics may legitimately differ.
The rather fraught history of the Catholic hierarchy's intervention in politics proves, as Cardinal Ratzinger noted, that the Church doesn't have any particular competence on the precise details of politcal questions, although she does have a programme of general principles. How to relate those principles to practical politics is the task of the laity, informed by the Church.
God Bless
Chris (Sullivan),
I agree with your above comments. If you personally choose not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear to everyone.
David L. Jones,
If I promoted IHS Press books to someone in our Justice and Peace Group and that led someone into contact with fascist or anti-semitic ideas and to form a distorted view of Catholic Social Teaching then I think I would share some moral responsibility for that. Same if I promoted certain books by Weigel or Novak (although outside of social teaching much of what they write is excellent).
I was disturbed by the IHS book "Action" by Jean Ousset which appeared to me, in places, to be rather too much enamoured of the idea of promoting military coups in 20th Century France as a means of legitimate "Catholic Action". One can perhaps see a fascist connection there (military coups being one of the facist means to power).
I think if there are fascist and anti-semitic links at IHS, and it appears there are, then one does have a moral responsibility to warn others of that if one is putting them into contact with IHS.
There's nothing particularly novel about this; one is forever coming into contact with various groups which have a degree of affinity with Catholic Teaching in one area but are very lacking, or even opposed, in other areas. If one knows this, then I think one has a responsiblility to warn others of it.
I think Christopher and Matthew Anger have acted very responsibly in bringing this to our attention and I thank them for their work on it.
God Bless
Here in Australia, the National Civic Council has been accused of similar sins. It came out of Bob Santamaria's Democratic Labor Party, and is strongly traditionalist. Unfortunately, it seems to have been infiltrated by people associated with La Rouche's Citizens' Electoral Council, which holds to all kinds of conspiracy theories with Jews at the centre of them.
Bernard, my knowledge of the National Civic Council is next to non existent. I rang them and asked if they have been infiltrated by the Citizens’ Electoral council and they denied it emphatically.
…but the NCC's 'AD 2000' magazine is still distributed in many parishes, and any (ironic) infiltration of the group by extremist elements is deeply troubling.
The magazine AD 2000 - http://www.ad2000.com.au/index.html - is not distributed in any parishes to my knowledge. Can you name the parishes which distribute AD2000? I am a subscriber to AD2000 and there has never been a conspiracy theory article to my knowledge in the magazine. News Weekly is a magazine, available by subscription, put out by the National Civic Council. I receive this magazine and, once again, I have not seen any conspiracy theory articles in it. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/
Chris (Sullivan),
Once again I agree with you. Recommending books of IHS Press is a matter of prudence. Good Catholics can agree to disagree on this matter.
What you cannot claim is that it is immoral or unethical to advertise, buy or read Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) or Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. There is zero credible or known evidence that any of the profits of IHS Press is going to any, any anti-semitic activities. No evil therefore immoral act is occurring here. If there is evidence of evil, show me. We must be very precise in this matter.
Even if you find evidence and prove it to be authentic (which hasn't happened) that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities, you and I could still purchase and read their books and it would not be a sin b/c one is sufficiently remote from this evil.
[David] If you personally choose not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear to everyone.
David, one of the best people I can think of to offer his judgement on this question is Jimmy Akin -- he addressed a moral issue similar to this one a while back: on using Amazon.com [or another secular bookseller] as an Affiliate.
Of course, there may also be a distinction between the general purchase books from a secular bookseller and the direct promotion of a controversial publisher who purports to be mainstream Catholic but isn't -- but Jimmy could probably weigh in on this issue if one invited him. And if he happened to weigh in your favor, so much the better.
For my part, having investigated, challenged and confirmed Sharpe's opinion on a number of issues, as well as his lack of concern for his partner's involvement with the the International Third Position and British fascism; Sharpe's own connection to the Legion of St. Louis, and IHS Press' presentation of themselves as a Catholic publisher while concealing ties to the Society of St. Pius X, there is simply too much for me to ignore or personally tolerate, and I can't in good conscience promote them on my website. (If somebody recommended a book published by the Society of St. Pius X, I likely wouldn't promote Angelus Press for similar reasons).
My judgement regarding IHS Press is not to be understood as a judgement on the traditional Catholic authors they publish, however. I think Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani are worth reading and including in our ongoing discussion of the Church and the liberal tradition.
(Incidentally, I happened to pick up a used 1950 hardcover of Fanfani for $9.00, thanks to the wonders of modern capitalism and bookfinder.com).
[David]: . . . that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities.
It may very well be the case that they did not, and probably kept the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press completely distinct so as to avoid any connection (keeping the LSL's website running for five years after the founding of IHS Press was a considerable gaff, however).
In any case, I'd say the connections traced in this post warrant concern in and of themselves ("neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles") -- even apart from the separate issue of whether sales from IHS press were directly supporting the LSL.
David L. Jones,
Agreed.
I think Christopher is more concerned about IHS and it's fascist and anti-semitic links than about Neo-Conned. He's written extensively and well on Catholic/Jewish relationships (as has Cardinal Ratzinger) so I think anti-semitic links would be a theological concern to him.
God Bless
I would just like to agree with Jeff's and David L. Jones' comments.
I am quite surprised to see the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (known in America as Society of Saint Pius X) as if they were some kind of "plague", untouchable... "they are not Catholic"... "ties with them should be disclosed"...
These words are, to say the very least, quite unwise at the current period in time. Would the same be said if there were "undisclosed ties" with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America?...
"...les fidèles qui assistent aux messes de la dite Fraternité ne sont pas excommuniés, comme ne le sont pas non plus les prêtres qui célèbrent, qui sont par contre suspens. C’est pourquoi, il serait difficile d’expliquer cette exclusion par ce seul motif, au moment où l’on cherche de réintégrer cette Fraternité dans la pleine communion de l’Eglise". Camille Perl, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, September 5, 2005 letter.
The kind of indepth exercises in ideological tidiness are fraught with peril.
One can easily acknowledge that Anti-Semitism, in all forms, is sinful, and probably heretical, while finding great merit in Fr. Fahey's books, and understanding 1) the time and culture he was writing in and 2) his explicit and numerous disavowals of Anti-semitism.
To say that he's insufficiently anti-anti-semetic is a subjective standard which really just serves as a brickbat to go after those who are insufficiently anti-Fahey, or insufficiently anti-Belloc or whatever.
I would point to the treatment of prowar Catholics by antiwar Catholics, such as, say PJB or Pope Benedict as an example of how to handle such disagreements.
For, despite the fact that its been proven several times over that 1) There was insufficient cause under Catholic Just War Doctrine to support the Iraq War; 2) the insufficient cause itself rested on misrepresentations and outright falsehoods knowable at the time to be so and 3) Many Catholic writers deliberately obfuscated the Catholic Just War Doctrine, as well as the Facts surrounding Just War, and were indeed "fellow travelers" of Pope Bashers who ridiculed and slandered the Popes John Paul, Benedict XVI, and numerous Cardinals as "pacifist", "ignorant", and even "anti-Semitic" for pointing out the truth--despite all these facts, most antiwar Catholics have let these transgressions pass.
But if insufficiently disavowing "fellow travellers" is itself grounds for censure, then it may be time to recall the shameful--yes shameful--shilling on behalf of the Iraq War, and the toleration of Pope Bashers in the Neoconservative Circles such Catholic run in, and point out how not only is the War Doctrine such individuals propose at variance with true Catholic Just War Doctrine, but their Economic Theory, and Political theory is as well, and Catholics should eschew it, and refuse all financial support to its promulgation in any way to avoid complicity in the promulgation of heresy.
[New Catholic]: I am quite surprised to see the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (known in America as Society of Saint Pius X) as if they were some kind of "plague", untouchable... "they are not Catholic"... "ties with them should be disclosed"...
John Sharpe / Derek Holland's relation to the SSPX is the least of my concerns, although I think there is something a little odd about portraying Richard Williamson as "a Roman Catholic Bishop" as he was in fact excommunicated by John Paul II in 1988, or The Angelus as simply another "Catholic publisher."
Yes, there are attempts made at reuniting the SSPX with Rome and these are certainly to be applauded, although if continued reports from Rocco Palmo here and here are to be believed, obstacles still lie ahead.
But again, the least of my concerns at this time.
The reason why it maybe time to "bring the sins of prowar Catholics" back before our eyes, is to preclude the use of such guilt by association for their attempt to justify their position on the war, and pretend that the matter is still open.
Again, we get daily confirmation from Iraq (sputtering claims of "wait till we find out what went to Syria") that the arguments and facts presented to prowar Catholics before the war, which they actively minimized, pilloried, and obfuscated, were true--and the Pro war Catholics were complicit in misrepresentation and promulgation of deception--that there was no "certainty" about the threat. . .facts which would have given many much credence for the Popes' witness on the matter, if not wholly convinced.
And instead of using their position in public discourse and intellectual environments to encourage deference to the Pontiff, and Church, when it chooses to speak, instead they chose to minimize and obscure that witness, in many cases because of their ideological affiliations with those who were tied up in crafting the deceptions themselves.
And from individuals like Francis Fukuyama, we now know for a fact that this endeavor was premeditated, and premeditated in precisely these ideological havens.
Dear Mr Blosser,
In this, as in many other Catholic news, Mr. Palmo should be read cum grano salis... Actually, since I myself have been able, with the little time I have, to unmask several of his ideologically-motivated ultra-liberal "news", I do not recommend his blog at all. It is better to read the Bollettino at the source.
I think there is something a little odd about portraying Richard Williamson as "a Roman Catholic Bishop" as he was in fact excommunicated by John Paul II in 1988
Many don't accept the excommunication was valid.
For them, Williamson is still a Catholic Bishop.
Therefore, one doesn't need to see "something a little odd" here at all.
If we are going to reconcile with the SSPX, which is the will of Christ, then we need to try to understand their position.
God Bless
Considering we are now in Lent, it's important to consider what the Church teaches in regards to the act of sinning, both formally and materially. There are kinds of acts that, if done freely and knowingly, would be formally sinful. Three conditions have to be met:
1. The act itself must be evil, rather than good or neutral.
2. The agent must intend the act rather than being forced to do it (explicitly or more subtly).
3. The agent must know that the act is evil.
In this case, no "act itself" of evil has been proven. Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
One of the best ways to explain discernment of a moral or ethical problem/dilemma is to give some analogies, which I would like to do in this case. They are not perfect analogies, but I hope some will find them helpful in this discernment process. You be the judge. Most of us on this blog is either using a IBM compatible computer or Mac. Do the proceeds or profits of Microsoft (Bill Gates) or Apple go to immoral acts, i.e. funding of abortion, etc. Yes they do, but does that mean you and I are sinning b/c we "support" Microsoft or Apple. No. Why b/c we are sufficiently remote for the evil. We are not directly committing the act of abortion (either as the doctor or patient) nor are we indirectly aiding this process by taking the person to the clinic for this murder to occur. Let's consider another analogy. Whole Foods Grocery provides some great soy/rice products. Whole Foods is known to donate a small portion of their profits to Planned Parenthood. Are we sinning if we choose to buy Rice milk? No. Why, b/c the act we are committing (buying the rice-milk) is a good act in itself. A family member might require it. Once again, we are sufficiently remote from the evil that is occurring (donations to Planned Parenthood). Now of course, if you can find another source of computer soft-ware or rice-milk and choose to shop or purchase from them, that's OK. It's a matter of prudence. Apply the two above analogies to our case of IHS Press and things should be a little more clear if it was fuzzy to you.
Many don't accept the excommunication was valid.
Isn't that the catch-22?
If you don't believe the excommunication was valid, you don't accept the authority of the pope. Which means you're not a Catholic in good standing. In order to reunite with Rome, one accepts papal authority -- including the prorogative to excommunicate.
To say that you accept the authority of the pope, the validity of the sacraments (the Novus Ordo), et al -- but SSPX was really right all along (and not excommunicated) then it is meaningless.
I used to be protestant -- this is all very familiar territory (w/ shades of Luther, just on a different topic). NO theological argument trumps papal authority. Not even if "you know better" on one particular subject.
Thus, if the excommunication is invalid, authority is meaningless and you're still out.
[David Jones] Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
David, we're kicking a dead horse here. If you believe my intent on posting was to demonstrate something wrong with the traditional Catholic authors published by IHS Press itself (Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani, etc.), you are soundly mistaken.
Especially after I've clearly said this was NOT my intent and that I approved of said authors (the former two, at least; I haven't read Fanfani -- I hope to amend that at some point.
To reiterate what I said in earlier comments: "I would NOT infer that the Catholic authors put forth by IHS Press in general -- G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc. -- are in any way racist/anti-semitic."
It does remain the case, however, that the publishers of IHS have a history of involvement in ideological movements and/or the propogation of ideas that would warrant the concern of mainstream Catholics. As Matt Anger demonstrates, Legion of St. Louis was still in operation past the time IHS Press was founded, and there was literature sold through LSL's website concurrent with the existence of IHS Press (and various editorials penned by John Sharpe) that should naturally be of concern to any faithful Catholic.
The fact that they have shown no sign of publicly renouncing and repudiating these ideological connections or opinions should be of concern, and it is my opinion that we should be cautious -- I think Matt Anger has done a sufficient job of demonstrating this.
As to whether you wish to continue promoting the Neo-Conned volumes through your website, that is another matter and I agree, a prudential judgement on your part.
If you don't believe the excommunication was valid, you don't accept the authority of the pope.
I don't think that necessarily follows.
Some do accept the authority of the Pope but argue that the proper cannonical procedures weren't followed and therefore the excommunication is invalid for technical reasons. I know at least one loyal and faithful Catholic priest and cannon lawyer who I understand believes this.
It's also possible for the Pope to err in matters of discipline. One can accept the authority of the Pope to excommunicate but still hold that particular excommunications (or even all of them) are unwise and counterproductive and not the will of Christ.
God Bless
One can accept the authority of the Pope to excommunicate but still hold that particular excommunications (or even all of them) are unwise and counterproductive and not the will of Christ.
Well, which is it? Technically invalid and prudentially unwise are two different arguments. I'm sure the Jesuits weren't thrilled to be suppressed, but they didn't question the Pope's ability to do it.
Even if the pope errs in his choice of, say, Secretary of State, the man he chooses still holds the office. Is it possible that SSPX just heaves a whole lot of stuff against the wall to see what sticks?
Regardless, this discussion should be about anti-semitism, which in my mind has undercut any moral arguments the SSPX may have. They can discuss the fine points of the liturgy til the cows come home, but if they have not charity, it's not helpful to building up the Mystical Body of Christ -- which clearly is the will of God.
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
You recognize (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. You admit this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. You are opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander. You really are my friend.
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
If frequent repitition will increase the hope of getting a point across, then yes -- by all means.
You recognize (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. You admit this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. You are opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander. You really are my friend.
David,
Here are the facts as Matt Anger has presented them:
1) John Sharpe is the founder of both IHS Press and the 'Legion of St. Louis' (we know the latter by his previous title of editor of the Legion of St. Louis on several websites ("Thou Shall Not Kill' Sept. 17, 2001 and 'The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001, both on conspiracy website MediaMonitors.net); an article in the Seattle Catholic; an exchange between Matt Anger and Sharpe in the Seattle Catholic in which he responds to "hidden criticism of my organization, the Legion of St. Louis"; and the "founding email" of the LSL provided on The Lef Loch Report. Matt Anger has prior knowledge of John Sharpe as founder.
2) We know that the Legion of St. Louis sells books of a controversial, anti-semitic nature -- Henry Ford's The International Jew; Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism; A. K. Chesterton's The New Unhappy Lords, titles which are widely touted by conspiracy theorists, Holocaust revisionists and white nationalists. Suffice to say that these books are sold by a Catholic organization of any stripe ("traditionalist" or no) would merit the concern of any Catholic.
3) We know that Derek Holland is co-founder of IHS Press; that Sharpe has had prior relationship with both Derek Holland and Bishop Williamson of the SSPX (The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson (Fringe Watch January 25, 2006) -- that Bishop Williamson's fraternization with Holland and Sharpe and refusal to distance himself from neo-fascist ideology was/is a source of great controversy within the SSPX and traditionist circles.
4) We know that the Legion of St. Louis was in existence well after the founding of IHS Press (an August 25, 2002 edition of the LSL's newsletter, for instance, reviews a book by IHS Press). Matt Anger explains in one post that back in 2001, up until 9/11, he had attempted to reason with Sharpe regarding the views he was propogating:
[Matt Anger:] For my part, I would have been satisfied had Mr. Sharpe dismantled the Legion of St. Louis (see earlier post) back in 2001, when I commended him on his interest in Catholic social issues while voicing my concern over his neo-fascist links. Yet he waited five years to take down the Legion website—even then, it is not clear that the Legion has actually ceased to operate. In other words, while he claimed to be devoting himself to bringing "back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church," he stubbornly adhered to these disturbing views.
5) We know that Derek Holland has a long history of disturbing political involvement with neo-fascist movements, and that this activity continued beyond the founding of IHS Press (ex. in February 2002 he was guest speaker at the racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden). (I could repeat the many links on Derek Holland, but in the interest of brevity I will simply refer you to Matt Anger's investigation of this issue December 2005-February 2006).
6) We know that "The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella." This was proven by the investigation of Italian fascist Robertio Fiore (and associate of Holland) for having set up dummy Catholic charities in the 90's to fund nationalist communes in Spain. [For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report", by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001].
Suffice to say that when Sharpe declared that "IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those don't violate either the moral or the civil law and . . . therefore [Mr Holland's background] is of no concern to IHS Press" -- we found this to be of some concern, in addition to his commendation of Michael Hoffman's II's book on the Jews.
What do we conclude from this?
What do we conclude from this?
- NOT that sales from IHS Press directly contribute to the Legion of St. Louis. Of course that cannot be proven and as I previously recognized, it is not likely that John Sharpe would disclose his financial records to anybody who asked, especially if they are confronting him on his history and that of his partner.
- We can conclude, however, that
1) the ideological connections and past history of both Sharpe and Holland remain a matter of of great concern ("The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources");
2) they should be confronted over them, not simply by myself but others who have a concern about these matters, since there is the question of whether those good Catholics who supported the Neoconned series or other publishing projects by Sharpe would have done so as readily, had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations and views of their publishers.
Note to fellow readers -- Sorry to pull a 'Fr. O'Leary' with the flurry of comments; there are limitations to Haloscan that prohibit lengthy commentary but I thought this worth responding to.
>anti-semitism is a racially based hatred of Jews because they are Jews. As opposed to say a suspicion of some Jews because they are capitalists or bankers or a political opposition to Zionism.
I reply: I really hate this so called definition of anti-Semitism certain trads are in love with since if applied consistantly to Catholics & Catholicism would force one to conclude Jack Chick is not an anti-Catholic. Why? Well Chick claims he "loves" Catholics so how can he be anti-Catholic? Even if we take Chick at his word in regards to his allieged warm fuzzes for us Romanists we would be forced to then ignore the FACT Chick 1) attacks Catholicism by distorting the Teachings of the Church 2) Accuses the Vatican & Catholics of being involved in a world wide conspiracy to bring about the anti-Christ (sound fimilar?).
Anyone notice the disconect here?
Lent has began... Let's stop dumping tar and feathers on others and take the beam from our own eyes. Pray, go to confession and mass.
Jones out.
David,
Would you make the same plea if the topic of this tread was in regards to complaining about the liberal nonsense espoused by Call to Action types & NOT Radtrad Jew baiters?
If "yes" then at least your consistant. Good show. If "no" then shame on you.;-) Naughty Naughty......:-)
BenYachov,
Anti-semitism is against Jews because they are Jews (by religion, race, culture, birth or however one cares to define Jewishness). It is a crime against a person. A social injustice. It leads to unjust discrimination, programs, holocausts, genocide etc.
As far as I know, Jack Chick advocates none of this, but is just fanatically and misguidedly against the Catholic Church, but not against Catholics as persons.
I suppose the appropriate analogy here would be Anti-Judaism (against the religion) as opposed to Anti-Semitism (against the person).
But if your objection is to that Anti-Judaism of the SSPX, because they reject the line taught by the last ecumencical council on relations with other religions, then I would agree with you.
It isn't Catholic to reject the truth in other religions. Of Judaism, one can say that everything in it is true and Catholic. It is without doubt a path to salvation. And we would gain much by a deeper understanding and acceptance of Judaism. God and his mother remain Jews.
God Bless
On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
Unfortunately, Mr. McElhinney gives ample evidence of the problem of this kind of "grass roots" ideological tidying.
For example, his premise on the Iraq war, is absent an infallible statement by the Pope, Catholics are entitled to contradict him with impunity, and indeed to propose their own readings of Church Doctrine and Current Events.
Nevertheless, that is not the standard. For, countless parsings of the levels of Magisterial Assent required, JPII, and Ratzinger elucidating him, presented their statements as nearly "res ipsa loquitur" analyses of Natural Law Just War Doctrine. As Ratzinger himself, quoted elsewhere on this site, noted: "Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. "
As a faithful Catholic, then, to say that this formulation is simple a private musing (which it was not, since it was made several times, and in public), which leaves it open not only for Catholics to have differing opinions about the matter, but in addition to express those "opinions" in public fora, as equally informed as the Pope in matters of theology, philosophy, and current affairs, requires one to demonstrate one has equal training and perview to the pope.
Why? Because though this was not pronounced "infallibly" or "in a binding fashion", it was issued publically by a man who appealed to his office, and his "thought [as] a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church."
Now perhaps there is a thoughtful individual out there who has done Ph.D. level work and beyond in Philosophy, Theology, and subsequently put that work to practice in teaching, and in rigorously examining the Natural Law, its demands, and the Magisterial Role in clarifying those demands, who very well might advance an argument against this position, versed in Philosophical Just War Doctrine and Current Events. Such a person might be able to claim that he does, conscientiously, advance a position equally as "knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church."
Nevertheless for those who don't have such backgrounds, it is simply a factual matter, not a matter of canon law, that the Pope's opinion is MUCH MORE LIKELY to express the truth of whether a given set of circumstances meet just war doctrine, at the level of an analysis of premises.
For then, those possessed of lesser amounts of training and perspective, to propose their own view as equally authoritative to the Pope's, in terms of the likely hood of that view comporting with the truth, is simple rash and false posturing. Moreover, to do so in public fora, is to scandalize those who might defer to the more knowledgable and possessed of a broader perspective.
So that is the demolition of the "McElhinney" challenge. The measure of understanding required to make one an "authoritative" alternative to the Pope is more than a JCL.