+ 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.
>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 reply: Exactly but he is still anti-Catholic here is why. There is a moral difference between the likes of Jack Chick Vs. Protestant apologists like Normal Glesler. Glesler doesn’t believe the Church is 100% “Biblical” (as judged by his neo-reformation standards of what constitutes “Bible Christianity”) but the man DOES make an effort to portray Catholic teaching as accurately & FAIRLY as possible (he doesn’t always succeed in the accurate department but I don’t doubt his good will. Everybody makes mistakes). Chick OTOH believes Catholicism to be EVIL & loyal Catholics to be complicit in that evil thus he employs a Machiavellian ends justifies the means mentality where he feels he doesn’t HAVE TO treat Catholicism or Catholics FAIRLY or accurately because Catholicism is allegedly evil & he must “save” everybody from it by any means necessary even if truth & fair play are violated in the process. Williamson & His radtrad anti-Semitic fellow travelers are of the same mentality & employ the same style in regards to Talmudic/Rabbinic Judaism. Either mentality is unreasonable, unjust, wicked & therefore by nature un-Catholic.
Cheers.
Once again Blosser uses diversionary tactics in desperation since he can't get the truth or the Church on his side relative to the war.
John Sharpe, whatever his other views, has accomplished much in these two volumes which include the writings of those on all sides of the political spectrum. He has shown himself to be eclectic in the best sense. Blosser would do better to try to answer the writers who have contributed to these powerful volumes than to indulge his penchant for diversions.
I'm sure we could point out instances of Chris and his bizarre friends praising particular works without it amounting to a carte blanche endorsement of everything those authors believe (or their lifestyles).
Stephen Hand
My God in Heaven Stephen!!!!!!!!
So if Bob Sungenis came out & became a DAS UBER anti-Iraqi war millitant like yourself YOU would forgive & forget everything & endorce working with him?
You know Stephen I normally don't believe in conspiracy theories since I believe they are for the weakmined. But I'M beginning to believe YOU must secretly support the War in Iraq. Since you seem GUN HO in discrediting the anti-War movement by linking it with Jew baiting trash.
Think man!
> without it amounting to a carte blanche endorsement of everything those authors believe (or their lifestyles).
I reply: Anti-Semitism IS NOT just a mere opinion that happens to be wrong & mainstream. It is intrinsically EVIL & should NEVER be tolerated! Ever!
Those of us who oppose Bishop Williamson do so for many, many reasons. But many buy books from TAN publishers knowing full well that TAN's Mr. Nelson hold's very similar views and is friends with SSPX'ers and outright Sedevacantists. Get a grip.
The next time you go into CVS or Walgreens for aspirin I'm going to accuse you of supporting the Morning After pill.
Stephen Hand
By the way, I once considered a public boycott against TAN for these very reasons, but reconsidered it since it didn't make sense.
So we could propose: we boycott IHS, we will boycott TAN's books on the saints, since both owners are alleged also to hold views we disagree with. Then anyone who byus from TAN we'll call an antisemite and collaborator.
Again, it doesn't make sense at the end of the day. Do you and yours buy Doubleday books, even though they and other reputable publishers publish anticatholic books?
Stephen,
There is a moral difference between going to Burger King (which gives money to Planned Parenthood) & YOU YOURSELF giving money to PP.
QUOTE"One does not have to be a supporter of antisemitism to be involved in a project where antisemites fund the project for distribution to others. And obviously those who contributed to that series who did not know about the funding source are not blameworthy as long as they recognize when made aware of this information what happened and act accordingly (like Deacon Fournier).{5} But those who do not act accordingly after being notified of this information do not deserve the benefit of the doubt in my opinion because they are obviously placing ideology ahead of principles rather than the other way around."END QUOTE
I agree with Shawn. Not only is this unprincipled but it DEFIES common sense. Stephen do you or do you NOT want to make a credible case against the War in Iraq? Well buddy YOU WILL FAIL in that endever by linking your view with fruitcake Jew baiters!
Progressives don't want me to read St. Thomas because he authorized the State's execution of heretics. Many early church fathers were, arguably, antisemitic. Some considered women hardly human.
Let's get real by getting critical in our approach to controversy. Heiddeger was a Nazi. Shall we not read him.
Maximiliian Kolbe held views very similar to Fr. Denis Fahey regarding "the Jews" (the man behind Williamson), shall we ditch the saint?
One could go on and on
I repudiate all the following from the fathers without repudiating all these fathers as such who held to such views:
Chrysostom's contemporary, Augustine, though more restrained, was ambivalent. While reaffirming Paul's attitude that we have a duty to love the Jews, he shared the view of other Church Fathers that Judas was the image of the Jewish people. From Augustine came the theory that the Jews are a witness-people destined to live as testimony to both evil and Christian truth, but who were not to be killed, for like Cain they bore a sign. 'Let them live among us, but let them suffer and be continually humiliated' (Augustine).The witness-people theory was later misused by many as a pretext for increasing the misery of Jews, short of taking their lives.
---The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah, 1985, p.52-53.
John Chrysostom, 344-407 A.D., preached: "The Jews ... are worse than wild beasts ... lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness had brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only ... to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up ... I hate the Jews ... I hate the Synagogue ... it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.
In his Commentary on Psalm 58-59, Augustine wrote:
The Jews have been scattered throughout all nations as witnesses to their own sin and to our truth. They themselves hold the writings that have prophesied Christ. If a pagan doubts Christ, we can prove his Messiahship because he was predicted in the writings of the Jews themselves a long time ago. And so by means of one enemy [the Jews] we confound another enemy [the pagans]. 'Scatter them abroad, take away their strength. And bring them down O Lord' (Ver. 12).
In 415 C.E., St.Augustine wrote:
"The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."
The Epistle of Barnabus shows the Church exalted at the expense of the synagogue and the deadly word "Deicide" (the killing of God) appeared in Christian writings.
Justin Martyr charged that the Jews crucified Christ in the highest pitch of their wickedness. It was during this time (150 A.D.) that the first encounter with Replacement Theology was embraced where the church replaced the Jews as God's chosen people.
Tertullian argued that divine judgment is upon Israel, and Jews are destined to suffer for the crucifixion.
New ideas opposing "law" sprang up as early as 160-320 A.D. Marcion, 2nd century, adopted Matthew 5:17 as key theme to ending God's law and taught that the grace of God superseded it, rejecting the Old Testament.
Several Church Councils from 341 A.D. to 626 A.D. prohibited Christians from celebrating the Sabbath, festivals, and even eating with the Jews. It seemed that the greatest concern with Judaism on the part of Christians leaders was the attraction that it held for Christians. . . . These rules do not come out of bad relations between Jews and Christians (what would now be called, erroneously, antisemitism), but rather were enacted because relations were good and the authorities wanted to separate the two peoples. God has always had a remnant who has followed the Torah.
Hey if you recall I HATED the REFLECTIONS & COVENANTS document with a passion. But it would be a cold day in Hell before I allowed my view to be linked to a man who hated it as much as mean BUT insisted the Talmud taught child rape! Why? Because ONE EVIL enables the other.
Your a hopeless ideolog Stephen! You are also untimatly useless as an anti-War activist! I'm glad your not on my side!
Yes, yes, thank you.
The last fragment after the quotes
(beginning with "...These rules do not come out of bad relations"...were not intended, only the quotes.
BTW it's on thing to quote Joseph Sobran (you did that during the Passion of the Christ Controversy & I supported you).
OTOH it would be ANOTHER THING to colaborate on a book with the man & have him use his share of the money to support the INSTITURE OF HISTORICAL REVIEW.
See the difference?
Here is the Catholic Faith we all embrace, per our Holy Father, Benedict XVI:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
DialogJu...logJudaism.html
Stephen,
Maybe I shouldn't have rebuked you "rebuke not an older man etc...".
I'm sorry.
But dang it you are often your own worst enemy & is has been pissing me off for years now.
Oh & Stephen I virtually believe EVERYTHING you believe about Jews & the Church. That's not the issue.
But many buy books from TAN publishers knowing full well that TAN's Mr. Nelson hold's very similar views and is friends with SSPX'ers and outright Sedevacantists.
I have heaps of Tan books but I think one ought to be wary of some of the views of Nelson and some of the books they publish on recent changes to the Holy mass.
I think much the same applies to IHS.
God Bless
No problem. We agree to disagree.
I angered ultratrads because of the nonsequiturs which became clear in time (though they say much that is true). I was dismissed by the progressives because I believe the Creed as the Church has always and everywhere believed it. And I shuddered to have to alienate some conservatives because of alien economic and political philosophies (though they say much that is true).
My sorry fate is to have to confess my heart and mind, guided by the magisterium, in order to leave lamps of Light for my children and grandchildren. I don't expect anything but spiritual warfare on earth.
I have heaps of Tan books
Me too. That's why I had to reconsider an inclination I had. The fact is I would be the poorer spiritually but for TAN---especially during Lent!
Wheat and tares grow together in this vineyard.
Ultra trads are often people who are very much in earnest about the faith, though victim to exaggeration, and I prefer any one of them to a Progressive who would empty out the content of the faith and bash the Church for a living.
>My sorry fate is to have to confess my heart and mind, guided by the magisterium,
I reply: As it is with us all but show some TOLERANCE towards those who confess differently on tangent details(like those of us who support the War. The Church tolerates our view why don't emulate her? It's not like you have to agree with us).
>I don't expect anything but spiritual warfare on earth.
I reply: I have no problem with you fighting in the great spiritual war. It's the friendly fire that pisses me & OTHERS off big time.
I have written specifically on this unfounded tactical charge of intolerance, as you must know.
http://tcrnews2.com/editorial4.html
TAN,IHS, (also Doubleday and secular publishers we all buy from despite their antiCatholic fare), we would all do well to take the meat and leave the bones, reading critically.
Amen.
And remember: Mel Gibson thinks the pope is a heretic (and I still love The Passion of the Christ and buy it for others).
Amen.
I remember the days when the name of Thomas Woods would send Mr Hand into a tirade against ultratraditionists....until Mr Woods came out against the liberation of Iraq, and then Mr Hand could say no wrong of Mr. Woods.
Some people prioritize the evils of this planet;Mr Hand, being a product of the 1960's, is obsessed with President Bush(Funny, where is the equal time of outrage against NATO and Clinton's blunder of bombings in Kosovo, which we still occupy?)
In any event, I think someone should inform Mr Hand that www.catholicworker.com does indeed profit from the selling of tee shirts and posters.
Myles
I just searched the IHS web site, and found a compilation by Arthur J. Penty, an avowed socialist (who claimed that distributism was "really" socialism, cleaned up), and a translation of Rev. Heinrich Pesch by Rupert J. Ederer, an "unavowed" socialist, who believes private property, far from being the "natural and sacred right" the Church has always promoted, is "really" prudential matter. This colors his translations of Fr. Pesch, who viewed socialism and socialists with outright contempt.
I also noticed a number of other, good books I wouldn't mind owning, but the addition of "forewords" to some of them would tend to make them problematical for me. IHS's publicity and certain publications were making me uneasy before; these revelations don't persuade me that they're completely lost, but there is certainly sufficient evidence to warrant some deep soul-searching on their part.
Re: the Catholic Worker and Cottage industries, I stand corrected and have made a note at TCR's musings section.
http://www.catholicworker.org/sh...org/
shops.cfm##
On Thomas Woods. Wrong. It was when I learned he had left the halls of the Ultratrads that our relationship thawed.
Bush and the 60's? I voted for Bush in 2000 since he had been urging a "more humble" foreign policy. So much for the 60's prejudice then (if you actuially read me you would know what I thought of the tragically ambiguous 60's) ...
I Couldn't vote for Bush in 2004, however, on account of his tragic overreactions to 9/11.
You cannot bring yourself to believe it was my own reflection of the facts alongside careful consideration of the Church's prudential judgements that convinced me against this war?
I guess little will be believed in this forum of pseudonyms and anonymouses. That is sad. It always ends the same way here.
Unfortunately, Mr. McElhinney gives ample evidence of the problem of this kind of "grass roots" ideological tidying.
We shall see...
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.
Nice try Al but I said no such thing. What is missing is a magisterial pronouncement on the matter. Are you claiming that what Pope John Paul II said on the war falls under the criteria of Lumen Gentium 25??? If so, then demonstrate this using general norms of theological interpretation. If not then, my assertion remains intact and unrefuted.
Nevertheless, that is not the standard.
Since I never said it was, you succeeded in knocking over a strawman Al...good job :)
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.
No they did not. If they had then Cardinal Ratzinger would have had to issue the communique to the USCCB in 2004 specifiying that this was a matter of open speculation. It was because of the USCCB essentially treating this matter as one of doctrine which prompted the then-cardinal prefect of the CDF to issue the correction in his official capacity.
As Ratzinger himself, quoted elsewhere on this site, noted:
After admitting that geopolitical matters were not within his realm of competence Al...why do you, Hand, and company always omit that one key fact in regurgitating the late 2002 Zenit statements?
"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.
And what preceded that statement??? Try a frank admission by His Eminence that these matters did not fall within his competence. This was made in late 2002 and was no different in 2003.
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 I have noted before, there has been no statement by the Vatican that the pope's position on the war requires religious submission of mind and will as per LG 25. In fact, the opposite is the case as the then-cardinal prefect specified to the USCCB in 2004. For that reason, I am hardly going to suspend my mind and intellect on this matter and I see a lot of rational problems with Ratzinger's assessment. But then again, I never claimed this was an area of his particular competence and he admitted to Zenit it was not. So once again, we have a kind of creeping neo-ultramontanism which seeks to make magisterial (and hence binding) non-magisterial opinions. Sorry but I think the CDF cardinal prefect is the one to listen to on this matter Al, not you.
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.
This is absurd Al. You are giving the pope a competence that the Church has never claimed that he has. Furthermore, you are engaging in an argumentation fallacy but to go into that would involve exceeding the space limits of Haloscan. Nice try but argumentum ad vericundiamhardly going to convince anyone who graduated from high school
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."
That is not the same as a magisterial pronouncement Al. And only the latter require religious submission of mind and will as per LG 25. Notice that I am not even saying it has to be an infallible pronouncement, only a magisterial pronouncement. And I await your proof that the latter was actually made and furthermore, your admission that the current pope (in his former capacity as chief doctrinal officer of John Paul II) made a mistake in the doctrinal communique he sent to the USCCB in 2004 on this matter among others.
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."
Once again we have argumentum ad vericundiam from you Al. Is this the best you can do??? I certainly hope not.
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.
Actually, it is not the case since application of just war is contingent upon a diversity of factors and the popes have never claimed to have special competence in this area.
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.
To appeal to authority as you are doing is to engage in argumentation fallacies.
Moreover, to do so in public fora, is to scandalize those who might defer to the more knowledgable and possessed of a broader perspective.
You are now engaging in the fallacy of questionable premise: keep it up brother Al.
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.
The only "demolition" you engaged in was of the faculties of logic and reason Al. My challenge remains intact and hopefully someone who takes the faculties of logic and reason seriously as Pope John Paul II himself did (remember Fides et Ratio???) will rise to the challenge you have obviously failed to meet.
A failed fisk is a terrible thing to behold. . .
Shawn,
You failed to once address the central point, and followed several rabbit holes to nowhere. And your lack of training in philosophy is showing through. First of all, argument from authority is a perfectly licit form of argument, its just not the strongest form of demonstration. Aristotle calls it "endoxa." So your identification of a "fallacy" is a fallacy in itself. Bzzt.
The central point is: JPII and BXVI know more than you. They know more than you about Philosophy, Theology, Magisterial authority and competence, and probably, Canon Law and current geopolitical circumstances. They know more than Fr. Neuhaus. They know more than Michael Novak.
Objectively.
Independantly verifiably.
Therefore, when it comes to between you and Novak and the Pope on whether this war is compatible with Catholic Just War doctrine, and they say --no its not ("There were not sufficient reasons to launch a war against Iraq") then their "opinion" trumps yours.
Because they studied it.
Bzzt.
Al,
Endoxa is a more stable belief than doxa, because it has been "tested" in argumentative struggles of similiar circumstances. Show me one historical similiarity of the US's liberation of Iraq has been 'tested'(oh yes, our involvement in WWII, which was not condemned papally), and your dilettantic attempt might make sense.
Myles
A failed fisk is a terrible thing to behold. . .
So is someone who cannot recognize argumentation fallacies for what they are Al.
You failed to once address the central point, and followed several rabbit holes to nowhere.
Actually, the argument is pretty simple really Al: you engaged in a fallacious form of argumentation and were called on it.
And your lack of training in philosophy is showing through. First of all, argument from authority is a perfectly licit form of argument, its just not the strongest form of demonstration. Aristotle calls it "endoxa." So your identification of a "fallacy" is a fallacy in itself. Bzzt.
Al, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It is not a valid form of argumentation to argue from authority when the arguments of the authority are not considered. You have merely accepted the opinions and conclusions of an authority and that is not a licit form of argument at all. Kindly educate yourself on these matters cause frankly you are making a mockery of the tools of reason and logic.
The central point is: JPII and BXVI know more than you.
Depends on the subject matter. But even so, that does not mean that they never make mistakes Al.
They know more than you about Philosophy, Theology, Magisterial authority and competence, and probably, Canon Law
In those areas, I would not dispute your claim. But again, knowing more does not mean that one never makes mistakes Al. And you again sidestepped the crux of the problem with your whole methodology of invalid argumentation.
Again Al, you are appealing to their opinions and conclusions and that is fallacious argumentation ad vericundiam in a nutshell as any first year college student with a rudimentary knowledge of argumentation fallacies is well aware.
Furthermore, when called on it (as I did), you appeal to their credentials as if reason and logic are only accessible to those with the highest of degrees. Once again, you make a mockery of reason and give fuel to the caricature that Catholics are incapable of thinking and give blind obedience to every hiccup that the pope makes.
You claim my thread of argumentation has logical flaws in it??? Fine, demonstrate your assertion or shut the hell up. Otherwise, why should anyone take you seriously???
and current geopolitical circumstances.
So says you. How do you know this Al??? Simple, you do not. You merely assume it because you are too lazy to do your own homework and actually exercise the very thinking mechanism that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have such a profound respect for. If you tried this crap in one of their classes (they were both professors mind you before they were cardinals and popes), you would get a big fat F.
They know more than Fr. Neuhaus. They know more than Michael Novak.
Objectively.
No Al, you are engaging in normative argumentation which is anything but objective. Furthermore, you are making the mistake of presuming that advanced degrees constitute knowledge which is another fallacy I do not have time to go into here.
Independantly verifiably.
And where or how have you done this??? Simple, you have not. You obviously cannot handle the challenge I made, you arrogantly postured in trying to answer it previously and now you are mad cause I slapped you down and pointed out the rational flaws in your methodology. But continue to act like a sophist{1} Al cause you will only drive people from your camp who do respect the tools of logic and reason and can see your pathetic posturing for what it is: someone who is incapable of arguing a position on its respective merits.
Therefore, when it comes to between you and Novak and the Pope on whether this war is compatible with Catholic Just War doctrine, and they say --no its not ("There were not sufficient reasons to launch a war against Iraq") then their "opinion" trumps yours.
Once again, you are engaging in fallacious argumentum ad vericundiam Al.
Because they studied it.
So did I. So did Novak and Neuhaus. And guess what: we did it independently of one another. Imagine that!!!
Bzzt.
I know I know: the logical faculties in your brain are short-circuiting again. Now then, either interact with my argumens in a valid manner or simply admit that you cannot. There is no shame in admitting the latter Al as it would save you more embarrassing posts like the last two you posted.
Note:
{1} Al's Methodology in a Nutshell (circa August 13, 2003)
I was going to say "You should become an investigative reporter," but it looks like you already are. Keep your headlamps bright and your body heat low.
Shawn is a joker who thinks he is smarter than the Pope.
SH
I've read lots of poor writers on the Internet, but this guy takes the cake. There is a thin line between comedy and tragedy.
My suggestion? Humble yourself, dear Shawn, and learn from the Holy Father than presume to teach him
The Hand thinks he is the arbiter of Catholicism. The Hand thinks he is smarter than the Pope, and the Pope is wrong, about priestly celibacy.
The Hand belongs to the Church of Hand.
Mr Hand vomits up the canards of www.antiwar.com and other leftist websites.
Mr Hand , you humble yourself, and get a hobby.
I was going to say "You should become an investigative reporter," but it looks like you already are. Keep your headlamps bright and your body heat low.
I will do my best Pertinacious One...the bodyheat low part will be hard with this kind of idiocy around. The theory that we are in a new Dark Age where reason and logic are almost forgotten entities{1} finds greater support with each passing day it seems.
Shawn is a joker who thinks he is smarter than the Pope.
Oh my!!! I have been confuted folks by Ye All Knowing Handness. Guess I had better pack it in now...not!!! 8)
I've read lots of poor writers on the Internet, but this guy takes the cake. There is a thin line between comedy and tragedy.
Then you should have no problem with the challenge I made to you last year now should you. Here it is again for the seventh time or so:
On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For
If my writing is so poor, if my reasoning so shallow, then put up and demonstrate it by responding to the thread above. Otherwise, your words are quite hollow indeed Mr. Hand :lol:
Note:
{1} Or as one of my mentors from years back noted so succinctly in the early 1990's:
[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa 1993)]
The pertinence of the above quote to certain parties on this thread whom I shall not presently name is obvious and regrettable.
An amusing funny farm of poor rascals.
A barrel of fun, you've got here Chris.
SH
Poor Shawn doesn't even know he has been answered roundly. But I could tell him the world was round and he would go bezerk.
But I shouldn't make fun. It's sad.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
controve...roversies1.html
SH
"Miles" , er, right...
The celibacy thing is only a suggestion, not dissent or opposition, unlike your opposition to the Vatican on the war which is based on the prudential judgements of the Popes based on infallible moral principles vis a vis the changing nature of warfare. Celibacy will always be the higher calling.
Celibacy is a matter of discipline only.
Homework: Try to figure our the difference between the celibacy suggestion and opposition to the Vatican / Pope on the war.
War...blood...peoples brains bashed out...women running down the street lit on fire...
Try to figure out the difference
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
controve...roversies1.html
But, again, Shawn would argue if I told him the Pope is more Catholic than he in his (the Pope's) thought (which would doubtless shock Shawn and drive him to howling)
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'." ----Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI (Emphasis mine) ---Expect changes in the Catechism in light of new situations.
Celibacy is a matter of discipline only.
I should have said, mandatory
celibacy is a matter of discipline only.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/celibacy.html
More...http://tcrnews2.com/priestslife062.html
That's
http://tcrnews2.com/priestslife062.html
Shawn thinks the A-bomb on Japan was morally justified. Now there's discernment! The Popes called it butchery. But Shawn knows better than any pope!
Shawn's religion is entwined with his Americanism like the owner of this "objective" forum. Everything Shawn has ever written on politics I heard Bill O'reilly say scores of time before...
The A-bomb, eh, Shawn?
You are not fit, my lad, to teach 7th grade catechism class, it is sad to say.
You accused me of "sedition". Remember that? After Horowitz's site accused Justion Raimondo of the same thing and threatened him with death. Read it.
And Shawn is supposed to be considered seriously?? Pleeeze. He burns incense to false gods and the imperium and would turn Christians in to the State, one fears.
The answer Shawn is to turn your intellect in humility to the Gospels, not to George Bush; to the Church, not to Rumsfeld; to the Pope, not to Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
I think that's enough, no?
Justify the A-bomb and you absolutely disqualify yourself from Catholic discourse. Take up golf.
:-)
> Justify the A-bomb and you absolutely disqualify yourself from Catholic discourse.
I reply: That goes for people who smear their fellow Catholics & JUSTIFY making alliances with known anti-Semites just to prop up their parcullar political views on a particular issue of the day.
Justify KNOWINGLY contributing to this book by IHS Press you are yourself unfit for Catholic discussion.
Ben
You don't understand. See, The Hand is the arbiter of all that is Catholic. When he speaks, it is as if the Pope as spoken ex cathedra.
And once The Hand speaks, there is no more discussion.
That is the way The Hand debates.
Let the anti war types visit his lousey website.
Myles
Stephen Hand,
You'll notice I permit Father Leary to comment on this blog. However, I do have a low tolerance for those who (like O'Leary) try to dominate a discussion by a burst of effluent scattershot posting. I would say the latter qualifies as an example:
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:13 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:17 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:28 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:32 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:33 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:36 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:36 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:41 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:44 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:47 pm | #
Stephen Hand | | 03.03.06 - 8:50 pm | #
You're free to post, but kindly gather your thoughts, reflect and post in a coherent manner, preferably in a substantial comment. Thank you!
I think that is called OCD...Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
+ Wow. This has brought out a side of folks I didn't know existed -- and it hasn't been edifying. Sounds a lot like a grade three schoolyard brawl.
Just war theory is very important, but not as easy to apply as, say, our understanding of abortion. While I totally respect the Magisterium of the Church, there has been no pronouncement on the invasion of Iraq, simply opinion. As for the Vatican's analysis, I take it with a grain of salt coming from Europeans who have a vested interest in polishing what Muslims hear them saying. Thus they can say and think two different things. Being politic can (and should) affect speech, as the bishops of Holland discovered in WW2.
Why are we attacking Bush when the discussion should be about IHS and anti-semitism. Deflection...?
Certain people seem to think that by merely posting a bunch of stuff they are somehow making an argument. The use of the frequent one sentence bits by Mr. Hand shows what a creature of the modern media he really is: flashpoints with no real thought behind them. A kind of "Catholic evangelization by soundbyte" it seems. The only problem is, Catholicism is not a soundbyte religion.
Furthermore, the readers can notice that Mr. Hand again has to engage in evasion rather than answer simple questions about his own statements (past and present). Let the record show once again that Mr. Hand runs from accountability like a coward and mindlessly engages in a kind of of "neo-fideism" citing sources absent proper context and challenging the orthodoxy of fellow Catholics.
Oh and for the record, I have never questioned Hand's orthodoxy even though (in light of certain dogmatically suspect statements he has made) I could do so if I was interested in placing his statements in the worst possible light. But I am not because that would be contrary to the instructions of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition. I take those exhortations seriously.
While I totally respect the Magisterium of the Church, there has been no pronouncement on the invasion of Iraq, simply opinion. As for the Vatican's analysis, I take it with a grain of salt coming from Europeans who have a vested interest in polishing what Muslims hear them saying. Thus they can say and think two different things. Being politic can (and should) affect speech, as the bishops of Holland discovered in WW2.
Well said gsk. For a very good (albeit not perfect) analysis of the complexities of Vatican geopolitics, see this thread from Sandro Magister's archives.
The Hand has spoken:
"The Wisdom of the Neocon groupies: "As for the Vatican's analysis, I take it with a grain of salt coming from Europeans who have a vested interest in polishing what Muslims hear them saying." ---I. Shawn McElhinney 03.04.06 - 11:52 am, from Chris Blosser's "Against the Grain" Website Comments (Chris--picture left---and Shawn are joined at the hip on their view of Catholic teachings, where they often correct the Popes in matters of Catholic faith. Blosser also runs The Ratzinger Fan Club and regularly gives Benedict, the new pope, instruction in matters of Catholic teaching)"
The Hand has spoken;therefore there is no discussion.
Behold the power of The Hand.
I don't think I have ever heard of Deacon Fournier (who is against the Iraq War) making personal attacks on Catholics who where for the war. Nor have I ever heard of him questioning the orthodoxy or loyalty of Catholics who supported the war. Nor have I heard of him smearing or misrepresenting the views of Catholics who supported the Iraq War. Has he ever claimed the Magisterium demands we support the War? I haven't heard anything. Plus when he was informed of the Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections at IHS Press his first response was the correct one, if the charges are true he would NOT want to associate his views or his cause with fruitcakes who advocate a sinful agenda (aka anti-Semitic conspiracy theory mongering).
So Stephen isn't that a rational & productive approch in promoting one's cause? Do you really believe your approch emulates that? Is it possible your approch up to this point has been self-defeating & irrational? With all due respect I think so.
PS Any Pro-Iraq war Catholic who slags off the Popes past & present for being against the Iraq War will get a double portion of hostility right back at them from me and I was for the War.
[Stephen Hand, TCRMusings, circa 2006] "The Wisdom of the Neocon groupies: "As for the Vatican's analysis, I take it with a grain of salt coming from Europeans who have a vested interest in polishing what Muslims hear them saying." ---I. Shawn McElhinney 03.04.06 - 11:52 am, from Chris Blosser's "Against the Grain" Website Comments (Chris--picture left---and Shawn are joined at the hip on their view of Catholic teachings, where they often correct the Popes in matters of Catholic faith. Blosser also runs The Ratzinger Fan Club and regularly gives Benedict, the new pope, instruction in matters of Catholic teaching)"
Besides the usual grade-school jabs (such are expected and rather common, unfortunately) , Stephen is completely in error
-- the author of said remark is not Shawn but rather "gsk" -- Genevieve Kineke, of the excellent blog Feminine Genius, and who I believe is editor of the Catholic periodical Canticle Magazine.
Not exactly your typical "neoconservative", but apparently one has only to now disagree with Stephen Hand to qualify: Congratulations Genevieve, you're now part of the Vast Right Wing Neocon Conspiracy.
Someone alerted me to a mistake here and having seen for myself please note the correction at TCR re Shawn and GSK. And that, a-hem, BenYachov charges me (but not the others---see above---) with personal attacks, must be a joke, right?
I am tame as a kitten compared to the cast here and criticize colorfully only in relation to actual positions (e.g., the non sequiturs about IHS and TAN Books) and the Bomb (which the Neo-Conned volumes in controversy here deal with directly and which were the victim of diversionary tactics).
Feigning delicacy is unbecoming, good man, and Deacon Fournier is too smart to fall for this type of red-toothed flattery.
I am very sorry to hear Genevieve Kineke so dismisses the Vatican and in such a way. Rehgarding the counsels and directives of the popes, our attitudes should be purer:
"We must love the popes ... their counsels and even their wishes must be a command to us. My sons, regard as enemies of the faith those who belittle the pope's authority or who try to minimize the obedience and respect due to his teachings and directives." ---St. John Bosco
[Stephen Hand]: Someone alerted me to a mistake here and having seen for myself please note the correction at TCR re Shawn and GSK. And that, a-hem, BenYachov charges me (but not the others---see above---) with personal attacks, must be a joke, right?
Funny, Stephen, having had to address the issue of your personal attacks -- sorry, "colorful criticism" -- against me on several occasions (Parting Thoughts on the Hand/Mockeridge Debate, Conditions for Dialogue May 30, 2005; Concerning my "lack of reflection and Catholic seriousness" August 24, 2005.
But enough -- as Genevieve said:
Why are we attacking Bush when the discussion should be about IHS and anti-semitism. Deflection...?
Genevieve's right, of course. This post is about the ideological background of John Sharpe and Derek Holland. It is not about "neocons," or the morality of the war in Iraq, and this post is not the venue for such a debate.
Feel free to comment on the subject at hand (no pun intended); if you can't restrain yourself, I'll do so.
Feigning delicacy is unbecoming, good man, and Deacon Fournier is too smart to fall for this type of red-toothed flattery.
Deacon Fournier is aware of Against The Grain; in addition, we are both readers/commentators of David Jones' blog (ressourcement.blogspot.com). As such (and as former editor of TCRNews.com prior to his resignation in February), I'd venture that he is more than acquainted with my politics and views on the war.
Nevertheless, as a contributor to IHS Press' Neoconned volumes, he has the good sense to recognize that the ideological positions of Sharpe / Holland are of concern and ought to be investigated further.
>We must love the popes ... their counsels and even their wishes must be a command to us.
I reply: Funny how Stephen believes this is binding on the rest of us BUT NOT HIM. Stephen you see believes Priestly Celebacy aught to be optional in the Latin Rites (even thought ALL the Popes in the past 1500 years up to modern times clearly "wish" the present custom to be maintained in perpetuaty).
In principal I have no problem with Stephen holding this particular pastoral view but the double standard here DOES kinda make me sick.
+ Let's agree to pray for one another in a brotherly spirit. For what unites us (the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord) should cause all other division to pale. Peace to all of you, and prayers also for Benedict XVI as he makes some intense decisions in the coming weeks. Blessings and a good Lent to all.
PS Stephen,
Christopher is right. Why not get on board (just like old times) & speak out against IHS Press' anti-Semitic foulness? If only because it tarnishes the anti-Iraq War movement if tolerated by anti-Iraq War orthodox philosemitic faithful Catholics.
Or do you put your paleoconservative politics above the Salvation of the People of the Old Covenant? In spite of everything I would hope not.
BenYachov,
The war in Iraq trumps all other issues in the world of Hand. It does not matter how vile a person you are(Chomsky, Scott the Pedophile Ritter, etc etc etc)the Hand will ignore those facts as long as you are obsessed with the demise of Mr Bush and the defeat of the USA in helping the Iraqis(and us) be safe from IslamoFascism.
The Hand would rather be friends with the likes of Scott Ritter than the good Catholics on this blog.
Pray for him, he is a very confused person.
Another thing, what person with any sanity would have anything to do with a book that has ties to David Duke? Stephen Hand is a troubled person if he needs to rely on the works of anti semites and the likes of racists like Duke and Sharpe.
Say a decade of the Rosary for Mr Hand, since he seems to be too tired to.
Myles,
FYI I assume sane Catholic people who are against the Iraq War & question the policies of George Bush DO NOT root for the demise of Mr Bush and the defeat of the USA in helping the Iraqis(and us) be safe from IslamoFascism.
Granted I supportted the War effort & respectfully disagree with those who object to it. But I refuse to be unfair to the sane anti-War crowd. Just as it is wrong to claim Shawn advocates Nuclear Genocide because he thinks he has found a way to justify the WW2 Japan A-bombings (& I disagree with His reasonings there too) I think your statement is unfair as well. Myles don't stoop to Stephen argumentive errors. It's not cool & just as self defeating. Cheers buddy.:-)God Bless.
As for your second post I agree with it.
Christopher,
Let's get back to the topic of the main post guys and gals. It's completly out of control. Must I repeat what I said in the my last comments above. "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." Guys, come on, we can do better than this.
I, David Jones (along with Deacon Fournier by referring to his own comments above), have the good sense to recognize that the ideological positions of Sharpe / Holland are of concern and ought to be investigated further. I, Dave Jones, sincerly hope it is possible someday to find out the real truth in this matter.
But Christopher, would you not agree with me that no one has presented any real (direct, explicit, & intentional) evidence of anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press, specifically the books you reference in the main post - Neo-conned (vols. I&II) & Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism?
Would you not agree that it's one thing to disagree with the domestic and/or foreign policies of Israel (especially if it's differs from American goals), but that doesn't necessary make a person "anti-semitic." Therefore referring to this in the Neo-conned volumes is not any real evidence. PJB is one person who has been creamed in the mainstream media as being "anti-semitic" when in reality he is not. I don't expect you to endorse the thought of PJB, but he's just a good example in this case.
I'm not going to re-hash my arguments from above, but I think we are in agreement here (more than less), are we not?
Specifically Christopher, do you feel that I am "sinning" b/c I advertise IHS books on my site? Or is this a matter of prudence that good Catholics can and do disagree upon?
Let me be very clear here, if some new credible and independently verifiable evidence is presented that IHS Press is directly and intentionally "anti-semitic," I will change my own actions in advertising their books. I go on the record saying this. Like Deacon Fournier, I have no problem making a break from them once the light is shined on them and the real truth comes out. As it stands now though, there is no direct or explicit evidence that IHS Press is intentionally anti-semitic. Do you, or do you not agree with this last statement?
Thanks again for your friendship Christopher.
David,
IHS itself doesn't seem to be anti-Semitic; but it's founders do appear to be.
If you think the books good, then promote them.
But I think it might be prudent to warn your readers of the ideological views held by IHS's founders.
God Bless
Chris Sullivan,
Your comments above are fair and I agree with you. I have linked to this post of Christopher's when it first was published. When I'm back to actively blogging (next week) I will reference to it once again.
Christopher Blosser - what say you?
[David:] But Christopher, would you not agree with me that no one has presented any real (direct, explicit, & intentional) evidence of anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press, specifically the books you reference in the main post - Neo-conned (vols. I&II) & Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism?
Again, it was never my intention to do so.
My concern lies in the personal views of IHS Press' publishers' (which I contend are anti-semitic; and the ideological connections and viewpoints of Derek Holland, as investigated and presented by Matt Anger's Fringe Watch.
Having not read the Neo-Conned volumes, I don't consider myself at liberty to comment on them directly, and I think a serious discussion of the content of IHS Press' other books on Catholic social doctrine would be tangential to the purpose of this post, which is concerned with the present views of IHS Press' publishers themselves.
[David:] Would you not agree that it's one thing to disagree with the domestic and/or foreign policies of Israel (especially if it's differs from American goals), but that doesn't necessary make a person "anti-semitic."
Of course -- although I also believe anti-Zionism is in some cases a useful masque for genuine anti-semitism. (Ex. It is one thing to disagree with Israel's policies, another to see the U.S. as a mere "puppet" and Israel "pulling the strings" behind every major financial and foreign policy decision . . . or even going so far as to orchestrate 9/11 itself, as John Sharpe suggests). There's a murky line between "honest criticism" of Israel and indulging in conspiracy-theorizing along the lines of Protocols of the Elders of Zion by some Catholics on the fringe -- a flirtation bordering on fanatical obsession -- that has always disturbed me.
PJB is one person who has been creamed in the mainstream media as being "anti-semitic" when in reality he is not. I don't expect you to endorse the thought of PJB, but he's just a good example in this case.
Jamie Glazov might beg to differ, ;-) -- but again, determining the (de)merits of PJB is tangential to our present discussion.
[David:] Specifically Christopher, do you feel that I am "sinning" b/c I advertise IHS books on my site? Or is this a matter of prudence that good Catholics can and do disagree upon?
I would venture that those who promote IHS Press ought to challenge their authors on the issues that were uncovered by Matthew Anger and myself -- that the prospect of "neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles" merits serious concern.
Not being privy to the internal finances of IHS Press or how it is getting its funding, one cannot make the claim that it has "received funding from antisemitic and fascistic sources." However, as John Sharpe is founder of both IHS Press and the Legion of St. Louis, and given the Legion's booklist of controversial titles together with the fact that both IHS and the LSL continue to co-exist, I would say it remains a present concern that ought to be investigated further -- though it is probably beyond the means of this blog to do so.
Personally, having confronted John Sharpe and noting his lack of concern for, and reluctance to address, the ideological connections of his partner, and his own views on the Jews and the Holy Father, I am not inclined to link to or promote them, insofar as he and Holland remain the owners of IHS Press.
But that is my call.
Your own promotion of IHS Press remains a prudential matter. However, I do agree with Chris Sullivan that "it might be prudent to warn your readers of the ideological views held by IHS's founders."
(I presently do not link to or promote TAN books; but were I to do so, I would be inclined to include a similar word of caution to my readers. In this particular case, I think the views of John Sharpe on the Jews are rather more pernicious than your basic traditionalist criticism of Vatican II, hence my opposition).
Chris, Fr. Denis Fahey's and Coughlins works are supported by every integrist publication and institution I know---and I know most well--- and Thomas Nelson is no exception (Nelson also publishes the most extreme sedevacantists who tend to hold the most extreme views like Fr. Anthony Cekeda, and he works hand in hand with John Vennari, Gruner, etc as you know well, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/
...nd_mission.html
John Sharpe's personal views are Fahey's views. You seem to be doing to him what NOR tried to do to First Things (insinuate a money connection ) along other lines.
I think it is clear to all but your friends here---knwing the history of your website, which is corroding with Mr. Bush--- that your real anxiety is with the contents of the Neoconned books themselves, which is hardly surprising and you have sought this typical roundabout way to attack them rather than answer them.
Matthew Anger is known by many as a chronic crank who first praised and then attacked some of us when we turned to the Ecclesia Dei model of traditionalism (not wanting to be schismatics, but opting for the Tridentine Mass and the Catechism of the Catholic Church) while he reverted to the SSPX and then switched again. Only the crankiness remains the same. I hope you and he can settle down and come to a positive approach to evengelizing with the Church than constantly indulging a polemics which does you know good.
Chris, you so predictably pardon every kookiness and error of your friends (whose blogs often do not even make the rankings radar) and think you quash your opposition when you only sadly make silly of this website.
It is unfair to make the insinuations you make here without money connections proof. Sharpe's Neoconned books are part of a wider publishing House for the whole Church; he has other publishing concerns for more narrow interests. Sharpe and TAN and most every publisher I know publish things both worthy and objectionable. Neoconned is not objectionable, however much it irks you to have such scholarship against you.
As for Fr. Denis Fahey, his views evolved and it would be mistaken to try to pin him as a simple "antisemitic" (or John Sharpe with him).
Your friends may resume their Ad Hominem spectacle now...
PS---Anti-Zionism should not be equated with antisemitism. Arabs are semitic, if I am not mistaken.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/di...s/
dissent01.htm
Too often this charge is a ruse to avoid engaging the issues.
The charge of "antisemitism" with its reckless Nazi connotations is a last refuge too often for rascals. I think NOR is somewhat reckless these days in some respects about Jews, but I do not mean they are "antisemitic". The same with Buchanan and Sobran. It is simply a trick of their ideological enemies. Some are anti-zionist, yes, but that is not the same thing.
Antisemitism would be racism pure and simple, ala Hitler's vile "racial purity" muck. The Jews have their interests (which does not include allowing Palestinians who lived in Palestine for 2,000 years to return and compete in a real democracy, as even liberal Jews themselves lament) as all groups do. But that does not make them wicked. They don't control the world, even if many of them do oppose Christianity's influence. It is simply competing interests.
One last thing (even if you mock me again---see above--- for placing posts in the order different thoughts occur):
Needless to say, I am not defending Fr. Fahey . I do not believe his views represent Catholic thinking today, but there was sadly enough in the fathers, ambiguity in his own time and tragic lacunae in the past for him to construct a theology which today we see as gross exaggeration.
John Sharpe will tell you he and I have, a-hem, sharply differing views on Fahey which we argued about because there was enough in Fahey's thought (culled sadly from the fathers, we have to sadly admit) to justify grave concerns. These concerns, however, were dealt with decisively at the Second Vatican Council, which ultrads do not accept as we do.
Since Ultratrads do not feel bound by the Council, they do not feel bound by the rejection of any nasty nonsequiturs found in some Church fathers. That is the issue.
The fact is Fahey rejected much of the extremism, however, found in the fathers, and stuck to a theological schema (however much we here do not) regarding the Kingship of Christ which was more refined than some of them.
To engage in a gottcha type apologetics is unbecoming and shows a failure to adequately deal with the real issues.
Now I will almost surely risk being called "obsessive compulsive" for posting yet a 4th thought, since I am still in the neighborhood:
The follwoing is from First Things and deserves a good read along with Chomsky above (who is also a Jew). The articles clarify much together.
Some called First Things "antisemitic" for publishing it.
Anti-Semitism Without Anti-Semites
http://www.firstthings.com/
ftiss...linghoffer.html
I thought you went fishing, Mr Hand?
Please do not rip on Matthew Anger for someone who switches sides, you have done a complete circle on your views over the past 10 years, and you seem to have ended up right where you started, with your pot smoking wilted flower children still waiting for the Age of Aquarius.
I stated simple facts. Do you have any similar qualms ripping into others, "Myles"? (above)
Still fishing in the neighborhood, though the wind is not favorable (Becky said she is painting the fence for a few weeks):
But seriously, charges of Antisemitism can, by their failure to make critical distinctions, reach hysterical proportions, even if some victims of the charge used reckless language which didn't facilitate good understanding.
George Orwell saw strains of "antisemitism" in both Belloc and Chesterton:
http://etext.library.adelaide.ed...79e/
part24.html
Here is a regrettable statement: Hilaire Belloc in G. K.'s WEEKLY, February 4, 1937
"The propaganda of Communism throughout the world, in organization and direction is in the hands of Jewish agents. As for anyone who does not know that the Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppression of our deplorable press."
Sounds just like Fr. Fahey's conspiracy theory. I have his book on the Jews and also realize he makes critical distinctions. But in the light of such statements, how helpful are they?
Fr. Feeney didn't help matters in this regard (see quotes in article) http://www.catholicism.org/bello...oc-
tribute.html
The fact is, apart from the Second Vatican Council's decisive rejection of exaggeration and error with respect to the Jews, there was too much room for theological constructs which were not helpful and even harmful to the Jews without necessarily intending to be so.
It is, then, the reliance on such pre-Vatican II statements and ommissions which distinguish ultratrads from Catholics who accept the authority of the popes today to overide, as it were, some positions of the father which were not dogmas of the Church.
So whether it is Mr. Nelson at TAN, John Vennari, or whomever, what we are really dealing with here is the Council with its clarifications regarding these matters---to say nothing of John Paul II's apologies for how such traditions contributed to pogroms and persecutions in the past.
The United States did precious little to help the Jews during and after WWII: Chomsky notes:
"the role of the United States during the Holocaust was awful, before and during. They didn't act to save Jews, and they could have in many respects. The role of the Zionist organization is not very pretty either. In the late 1940s there were plenty of displaced persons in the Jewish DP camps. Some survived. It remained awful, they stayed in the DP camps, in fact, for a while they were dying at almost the same rate they were under the Nazis. Many of those people, if they had been given a chance, surely would have wanted to come to the United States. There are debates about how many, but it's just unimaginable that if they'd been given a chance they wouldn't have wanted to come here. They didn't. A tiny scattering came. There was an immigration bill, the Stratton bill, which I think admitted about 400,000 people, if I remember, to the United States, very few Jews among them. Plenty of Nazis, incidentally, straight out of their SS uniforms. The reason that bill passed, I think it was 1947, was that it was the beginning of the Cold War and priority was being given to basically the Nazis, because we were resurrecting them all over the world, a lot of them were brought in, a lot of Nazi war criminals, and others, but very few Jews. That's not a very pretty sight. You say, during the war you could have given some argument, not an acceptable argument, but you could have given at least a not ridiculous argument that you had to fight the war and not worry about the people being sent to the gas chambers, but after the war you couldn't give any argu- ment. It was a matter of saving the survivors, and we didn't do it. "
Lest I too be called an "antisemite" at last, I draw your attention to the following in this regard:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/CamusPius.html
Noam Chomsky is an Anti Semite
A loaded question, I realize. I am reticent to enter into this issue in depth, since it always arouses violent passions on all sides, but I don't think there's any sense in pretending it doesn't exist.
To get things out of the way: Yes, I do consider Chomsky an anti-Semite. This inevitably raises the second question: How can Chomsky be considered an anti-Semite when he's a Jew himself? Firstly, being Jewish has, unfortunately, never precluded fealty to anti-Semitism. In fact, many of the most brutal polemical assaults against Jews and Judaism have been accomplished at the hands of their former co-religionists. The first time the Talmud was burned, in the 13th century, it was at the behest of a Jewish apostate to Christianity named Nicholas Donin, who denounced the Talmud as heretical. To choose a more modern example, the Bolshevik government in 1920s Russia organized its persecution of Orthodox Judaism mainly through the services of the Jewish Bund; an anti-religious socialist movement which had, ironically, played no small part in the February Revolution which toppled the Czar. And, of course, there is the classic image of Karl Marx, born a Jew and baptized only at the age of six, who could nonetheless write
What is the Jew's foundation in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money...Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand...The bill of exchange is the Jew's real God...Only then could Jewry become universally dominant...The social emancipation of Jewry is the emancipation of society from Jewry.
But then another question arises, why not simply term Chomsky a self-hating Jew? The truth is, I dislike the term. It implies a tragic pathos that absolves its object of an elementary moral responsibility. It also implies an inner-directedness which I consider false and misleading. Chomsky's attitudes towards the Jews are directed outwards, at the Jews as an object, and not towards any outwardly "Jewish" qualities within himself.
Is Chomsky, for lack of a better term, an Uncle Tom? Now, it is certainly true that members of very small and oft-persecuted minorities often adopt highly contemptuous attitudes towards their fellows in order to escape the burden of an alienated identity; this is especially common in countries like the United States, where the rate of assimilation is high and, thus, identification with the dominant culture very strong. The United States, however, is not an anti-Semitic country (though anti-Semitism does exist and is growing in certain circles) and, while denial of one's Jewish identity, even at an unconcious level, is widespread in American Jewry, the adoption of outright anti-Semitic attitudes does not axiomatically follow.
This does lead us somewhere, however, and it is to the ideological nature of the radical circles in which Chomsky serves as both guru and priest. Although the broader society in which Chomsky lives is not anti-Semitic, the microcosmic milieu in which he travels most certainly is. It would be, quite simply, impossible for Chomsky to retain his credibility among his fellow ideologues without adopting such attitudes. He walks, after all, in circles in which Jewish revolt or revolution is strictly forbidden. In his chosen family, Chomsky may dance at everyone's wedding but his own. We are dealing, after all, with a culture which aggrandizes Fanon and brands Jabotinsky a fascist. Other groups may assert their national identities and partake in the regenerative qualities of revolt. Chomsky, however, must take his rebellion secondhand, and thus is doubly alienated; both from his own identity, and from the identity of those through whom he rebels vicariously. Chomsky cannot hate his own enemies, but he can hate theirs, and when their enemies become the Jews, we see how this monstrous dialectic reaches its end: with the advocate becoming the most zealous of prosecutors. Witness the following:
[Chomsky]: In the US when I was growing up anti-Semitism was a severe problem. In the 1930’s depression when my father finally had enough money to buy a second-hand car and could take the family on a trip to the mountains, if we wanted to stop at a motel we had to check it didn’t have a sign saying ‘Restricted’. ‘Restricted’ meant no Jews, so not for us; of course no Blacks. Even when I got to Harvard 50 years ago you could cut the anti-Semitism with a knife. There was almost no Jewish faculty. I think the first Jewish maths professor was appointed while I was there in the early ‘50s. One of the reasons MIT (where I now am) became a great university is because a lot of people who went on to become academic stars couldn’t get jobs at Harvard-so they came to the engineering school down the street. Just 30 years ago (1960s) when my wife and I had young children, we decided to move to a Boston suburb (we couldn’t afford the rents near Cambridge any longer). We asked a real estate agent about one town we were interested in, he told us: ‘Well, you wouldn’t be happy there.’ Meaning they don’t allow Jews. It’s not like sending people to concentration and termination camps but that’s anti-Semitism. That was almost completely national.
This is all completely true, of course, and it is surprising to see the emotion strung in between those words; it is clear that Chomsky feels the sting of anti-Semitism, even today. It is fascinating to see, however, where this leads him.
[Chomsky]: By now Jews in the US are the most privileged and influential part of the population. You find occasional instances of anti-Semitism but they are marginal.
With a disconcerting surety, he echoes the very thoughts of the anti-Semites he has just denounced. Jews are not a privileged and influential part of the population, they are the most privileged and influential part of the population. And privilege is, of course, not something achieved, but something bestowed. The Jews, in other words, are neither persecuted nor marginalized, as he acknowledges, with some bitterness, they once were; but rather favored sons of the society of which he just a moment ago spoke so bitterly. And whither anti-Semitism?
[Chomsky]: Anti-Semitism is no longer a problem, fortunately. It’s raised, but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control. That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue. Not because of the threat of anti-Semitism; they want to make sure there’s no critical look at the policies the US (and they themselves) support in the Middle East. With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what’s called ‘propaganda’ when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there’s no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there’s no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish ‘that’ then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there’s talk in the US about anti-Semitism.
Thus, not only does anti-Semitism not exist but, in an extraordinary turn of the worm, it has become a tool in the hands of the "privileged people" who desire, not mere control, but "total control". And, at last, we begin to hear that old echo. That frenetic compendium of secret conspiracy which first issued to us from the minutes of the elders of Zion.
[Chomsky] The Hebrew press is much more open than the English language press, and there’s a very obvious reason: Hebrew is a secret language, you only read it if you’re inside the tribe. Like most cultures it’s a tribal culture. I don’t want to exaggerate, but the English translations on the internet are very revealing and very interesting.
Thus, there is no anti-Semitism except as a means to silence. There is no anti-Semitism except as a weapon of the propagandists and the privileged against their critics. There is no anti-Semitism except to further the ends of the tribe, with their secret language in which are couched dark doings which, while one doesn't wish to exagerrate, are at least sinister enough to be couched in this code which only the privileged may decipher.
Now, I don't wish to exagerrate either, but we should examine where this process ends. Should French teenagers, for instance, beaten or stabbed in the street, claim anti-Semitism as the cause; they are not aggrieved victims of racist violence, but rather agents of the quest of the privileged to rule all. American college students, at MIT lets say, who are greeted on Holocaust Memorial Day by protestors equating Israel and Nazi Germany and complain that such statements are anti-Semitic; are not stung by vicious, thoughtless, and deliberately hurtful rhetoric, but rather brutal totalitarians attempting to "silence" the innocent agents of justice and truth. Even the Israeli father who considers the suicide bomber who eradicated his family, propelled by the imam's admonition of "death to the Jews", to be anti-Semitic is no more than a derelict apologist for American and Israeli atrocities.
There is, of course, something a little monstrous in all of this. On scales of evil, perhaps, it is not the highest, but it is of a piece. Of a piece with the political violence Chomsky aggrandizes and of a piece with his apocalyptic dehumanization of all who fail his test of beleaugered sanctity. There are those sanctified by Chomsky, there are holy innocents, even; but there is also conspiracy, and, as Alain Finkielkraut has pointed out, anyone who talks of conspiracy eventually ends up talking about the elders of Zion. Even, it seems, Noam Chomsky.
[-- Source: Benjamin Kerstein DiscoverTheNetworks.com]
Edited By Siteowner
Chomsky, the Jew, an antisemite? That is clearly preposterous, if you have read him. I have a feeling too many people here read secondary sources (with a sympatehtic ax to grind) rather than the sources themselves.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/di...s/
dissent01.htm
I suggest you read about his support of Holocaust deniers Faurisson.
"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work."
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/...rs/1989----
.htm
Genevieve, that has got to be one of the most convoluted, confused, statements I have read here. At least when "Myles" dribbles into his shirt collar and calls me a pot-smoking Acquarian (to heck with my love for the Creed) I know what the poor lad means. But this kind of reasoning, based on a total misunderstanding of what he is saying and intends (that Jews, like Irish Catholics, are on the whole doing pretty well today compared to the 30's) is bizarre. It appears a reasoning profferd only to support the the uncritical distinctions made in the original diversionary tactic made at the beginning of this thread in order not to have to answer the very eclectic scholarship contained in the neoconned volumes.
But this is an anti-neocon site afterall.
Apparently you fell for the nonsense about his not believing in gas chambers. I have a video here of him dicussing this lie in full. You must go to the sources:
http://www.chomsky.info/intervie...ws/
19811026.htm
QUESTION: Do you believe that the doubt about the existence of gas chambers is a reasonable doubt? I mean, that their existence or non-existence is, from the viewpoint of historical research, a real problem?
CHOMSKY: My own view is that there are no reasonable grounds to doubt the existence of gas chambers. Of course, this is a question of fact, not religious faith. Only a religious fanatic would deny that questions of fact are subject to inquiry.
QUESTION: If you haven't had the opportunity to examine the substance of the record, what is the reason?
CHOMSKY: My reasons are the same as those of the vast majority of others who have also not done so. The claim that there were no gas chambers seems to me highly implausible, and the denial of the holocaust, completely so. Like virtually everyone else who has written about this affair or who has not, I see no need to investigate further. It has been alleged (e.g., by Vidal-Naquet) that it is "scandalous" to defend Faurisson's right to freedom of expression without denouncing his conclusions -- which would, of course, require careful analysis of his documentation, etc. By these curious standards, I have often been engaged in "scandalous" behavior. I have frequently signed petitions -- in fact, gone to far greater lengths -- on behalf of East European dissidents whose views I either do not know, or do know and find horrendous: supporters of current American atrocities, for example. I never mention their views in this context, even if I am familiar with them, a fact that no doubt scandalizes the commissars. The demand that defense of civil rights requires an analysis and commentary on the views expressed would simply eliminate the defense of the rights of those who express unpopular or horrendous views, the usual case where a serious issue arises. This is taken for granted without comment by all civil libertarians. In discussing this issue, I have therefore limited myself to stating that Faurisson's views are diametrically opposed to mine, as indicated in the comments I quoted earlier and others like them. In the case of East European dissidents, for example, I do not even go that far, nor is it necessary to do so.
No Stephen, I believe you are the naive one who believes what this man says....I provided you with a quote from his own mouth and his defense of Faurisson. Chomsky cannot be believed, he is a liar, and it is too bad that you cannot see this.
Quote: "I have therefore limited myself to stating that Faurisson's views are diametrically opposed to mine" ---Chomsky
"Chomsky cannot be believed. he is a liar"
Is that the only kind of argument which passes for objectivity and good scholarship here?
It's like being at a John Birch Society meeting.
"I provided you with a quote right out of his mouth"
That kind of parsing is tantamount to asserting that Our Lord in saying, "for the night comes when no man can work," he was forbidding the 3rd shift.
Heck, you can fish all day at this pond and only catch water moccasins. Time to head back and see how Becky's doin' on that fence...
You guys can come outta the bushes now.
Px,
SH
[Stephen Hand]: John Sharpe's personal views are Fahey's views. You seem to be doing to him what NOR tried to do to First Things (insinuate a money connection) along other lines.
Fr. Fahey's influence on John Sharpe is noticeable and troubling; but I'm equally concerned about his his commentaries on 9/11, his lack of concern for his partner's politics and viewpoints, and his selling of numerous other questionable books through the LSL -- Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism and Fr. Prainatis' The Talmud Unmasked.
[Stephen Hand]: I think it is clear to all but your friends here . . . that your real anxiety is with the contents of the Neoconned books themselves.
In terms of dishing out my own money, I'm not so inclined to purchase them myself for reasons stated above -- but if I found them at my library, I'll give them a read per your request.
[a number of personal insults from Hand about this blog/website are overlooked, as they are IMHO not worth responding to]
It is unfair to make the insinuations you make here without money connections proof. Sharpe's Neoconned books are part of a wider publishing House for the whole Church; he has other publishing concerns for more narrow interests. Sharpe and TAN and most every publisher I know publish things both worthy and objectionable. Neoconned is not objectionable, however much it irks you to have such scholarship against you.
The financial connections are a concern but not the point of the post. I would say my chief concern is the attempt by Sharpe / Holland to enter into the "mainstream" of Catholic publishing while simultaneously maintaining other projects or ideological affiliations that are of great concern.
There are some contemporary Catholics who have outgrown their anti-semitic or neo-fascist roots -- Matt Anger is one of them, being a former member of the British National Front in the 1980's; and from what I recall, Catholic biographer Joseph Pearce is another. Unfortunately, neither Sharpe nor Holland have provided evidence that they have distanced themselves from and repudiated these kind of views. That should be of concern.
In my opinion, one cannot simply dismiss Sharpe's obsession with the Jews, his kooky conspiracy theorizing about 9/11, the LSL's curious appearance on white-supremacist mailing lists, etc., as a "narrow interest," or -- to quote the authors' description of Holland -- "a student of alternative political movements."
[Stephen Hand]: As for Fr. Denis Fahey, his views evolved and it would be mistaken to try to pin him as a simple "antisemitic" (or John Sharpe with him)
John Vennari and Robert Sungenis (both influenced by Fahey as well) have offered similar defenses (excuses?) of Fahey on grounds that he is not a simple anti-semite. And in a sense, this is very well true -- he isn't.
But as I noted much earlier in this combox discussion, if one confines anti-semitism to racial hatred of the Jews, there is a tendency to excuse or overlook a great deal.
In his classic and indespensable study of the subject, The Anguish of the Jews, Fr. Edward Flannery defined anti-semitism as "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."
On one hand, one could suggest that Fr. Fahey's hostility to Jews was rooted in theological anti-Judaism, which is distinct from the racially-based and pagan anti-semitism of the Nazis.
On the other hand, when Fahey claims that it is incumbent upon all Catholics to stand against the "opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of [the Jewish] nation over all the others," (What really is anti-semitism?) or makes the charge in The Rulers of Russia) that "The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces, and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom," -- well, I for one have a difficult time telling the two apart.
Mary Christine Athans makes a case, for example, that the anti-semitism of Fr. Charles Coughlin was a result of his personal correspondence with Fahey, who laid the theological groundwork for his tirades against the Jews (The Coughlin-fahey Connection: Father Charles E. Coughlin,Father Denis Fahey,C.S.Sp.,and Religious Anti-semitism in the United States,1938-1954 P. Lang, 1991.
For more on Fahey, Coughlin, and company, see Swinging at Windmills
A Close Look at Catholic Conspiracy Theories, by Sandra Miesel. Crisis Dec. 2, 2002 (reproduced, if I recall correctly, in its entirety at TCRNews.com as well).
[Stephen Hand:] PS---Anti-Zionism should not be equated with antisemitism. Arabs are semitic, if I am not mistaken
The argument for such extension [of "semite" to encompass Arabs] comes out of the claim that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages, and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, anti-Semitism should be likewise inclusive. This usage is not generally accepted. -- Wikipedia: "Anti-Semitism"
[Stephen Hand:] The charge of "antisemitism" with its reckless Nazi connotations is a last refuge too often for rascals. I think NOR is somewhat reckless these days in some respects about Jews, but I do not mean they are "antisemitic". The same with Buchanan and Sobran. It is simply a trick of their ideological enemies. Some are anti-zionist, yes, but that is not the same thing.
I agree with Stephen that NOR and Dale Vree are not anti-semitic. With respect to Sharpe and Holland, I have made my case -- and as I've said before, a discussion of Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran and their comments about the Jews is tangential to this post and not worth pursuing.
[Stephen Hand]: Needless to say, I am not defending Fr. Fahey . I do not believe his views represent Catholic thinking today, but there was sadly enough in the fathers, ambiguity in his own time and tragic lacunae in the past for him to construct a theology which today we see as gross exaggeration.
Well, thank God for that. We can agree on something, at least. =)
[Stephen Hand]: The fact is Fahey rejected much of the extremism, however, found in the fathers, and stuck to a theological schema (however much we here do not) regarding the Kingship of Christ which was more refined than some of them.
Whether Fahey's discussion of the Jews was more "refined" than the early Church fathers is subject to debate, but again, for another time.
[Stephen and GSK engage in a discussion of the anti-semitism of Noam Chomsky which I won't get into -- for the same reasons as I refrain from a discussion of Pat Buchanan, Sobran, et al. But I think a few readers might be amused to learn that Chomsky and Zinn were my heroes back in my college days . . . . before I sold out and started this blog with the specific intent, in Hand's words, "to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons."]
[Stephen Hand]: Heck, you can fish all day at this pond and only catch water moccasins. Time to head back and see how Becky's doin' on that fence...
This from somebody who announced yesterday that he was leaving TCRNews.com - having "said all that needed to be said, done what we hoped could be done for others too, and will leave it to others now"?!?
Short vacation, eh? -- Blessed Lent.
"On the other hand, when Fahey claims that it is incumbent upon all Catholics to stand against the "opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of [the Jewish] nation over all the others," (What really is anti-semitism?) or makes the charge in The Rulers of Russia) that "The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces, and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom," -- well, I for one have a difficult time telling the two apart."
Then at least be consistent in refusing to make critical distrinctions and boycott all who sell even Belloc's books, since he made statements almost identical as Fahey and his book on the "problem" of the Jews is very offensive to many.
This from somebody who announced yesterday that he was leaving TCRNews.com - having "said all that needed to be said, done what we hoped could be done for others too, and will leave it to others now"?!?
What this has to do with anything, is not clear. Yes, for a while I have felt we've said and accomplished what was intended at TCR. Friends convinced me otherwise and that a simple break was better. I tend to agree (ask me and I'll send you privately the requests).
I'll not be updating TCR for some weeks. I hope that's ok with you, good man. TCR is not forever (nor presumably is this "objective" neocon quote bin), even if an archive will last for sometime after I am done with it. That I came here to "catch up" on this thread was a recreation and to catch up on the pots who like to call the kettles black and throw stones from a glass house.
You will find we agree and differ with Catholic Workers in some points, antiwar activists in some points, neocons in some points, progressives in some points, even the Vatican in some points...etc, etc. That was called critical thinking when I went to school, Chris. It's why I went to the Ecclesia Dei traditionalism when old friends showed schism was the logical end of certain presuppositions I did not share.
But here there is no doubt---at least in what you have expressed and spilled tons of "ink" saying. The war is right. It's simple here. Thought is too complex and easier to mock.
Short vacation, eh? -- Blessed Lent.
You should not wish holy things in the same breath in which you show barely disguised hate, Chris. It is spiritually dangerous. And people who are not of this Fan Club see it.
Christianity is more than cleverness, Chris. More than parading what you evidently think is some kind of intelligence / intellectualism (even if to wrong conclusions). Nor is it mimicking and feigning reason even as you show narrow-mindedness and thinly concealed contempt in the service of a schoolboy "gottcha" apologetics. Nore pardoning every excess of your friends while straining at gnats with others.
You are a smart guy. But what does that matter if you and your friends give off a foul odor of cynical pride in your dialog and hear no one but yourselves; so much so that your replies become entirely predictable?
Now on the Vatican: I may, as mentioned above, disagree with the present Vatican on a few issues (the best known is on mandatory celibacy in the face of sex abuse against boys, but that is a suggestion of love, not dissent. Also, the Vatican's failure ---to this point anyway--- to restore the Tridentine rite to all orthodox Catholics to all parishes of the world without fear of trouble from bishops) but never on the matter of war, never on a matter so grave (the matter which all can see really 'gets' you in the neconned volumes at this neocon website) where blood and bone are what is at stake. Can there be any more serious subject on which the Church in her prudential judgement speaks?
Some of your most influential neocon mentors have left you behind http://tcrnews2.com/Neoconwars.html in forsaking that sorry illegal war of aggression which has kiled so many innocent and only strengthened Iran in the region (with China and Russia her allies).
You seem to put Caesar over the Church in this, Chris. The Stars and Stripes over the cross and Christ's teachers and teachings. How long, Chris will this jingoism last?
'The world has learnt a tough lesson, and it has been a lot tougher for those tens of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqis ... than
for a few humiliated pundits. The correct response is not more spin but a sense of shame and sorrow.' ---Andrew Sullivan
Amen. Humility is the sister of courage.
Mr Hand,
You are not the arbiter of Catholicism. Please stop lecturing us on your version of the faith.
Amanda
"I think a few readers might be amused to learn that Chomsky and Zinn were my heroes back in my college days . . . . before I sold out and started this blog with the specific intent, in Hand's words, "to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons."
You cashed in Chomsky (who is called a communist, an antisemite, a traitor, any number of things, by his opponents and facts do not matter ) for George W. Bush and his war in Iraq and this is supposed to be a sign of growth?!
Because I care about facts and almost always read and watch opposite opinions to my own, I read the Anti-Chomsky Reader just last year, cover to cover, and, apart from some interesting incidental matters, found it deficient on the major issues it sought to address, being knee-jerk uncritical with regard to things political; it was an ideologically driven diatribe which strained at the gnats and ignored the brutal facts which Chomsky spoke to.
And, pray, what do your college days with Chomsky have to do with the antisemite
Last line should read:
And, pray, what do your college days with Chomsky have to do with the antisemite charge against him?
Dear "prolife mom":
As you know, no lay Catholic is an "arbiter" of the Faith, but yours is a much repeated cheapshot here, a poor substitute for thought and serious dialog, no?
(Why are pseudonyms and monikers used in this particular forum?)
Ah, Amanda, prolife mom... ok.
As for a previous charge that I quote the unorthodox to the orthodox here: when a house is on fire I am not in the habit of giving theological exams to the bucket brigade.
If I am going to continue this dialog here, assuming you want to, I am now asking all to fully identify themselves and their websites in the interests of full disclosure. No website is too often a cover for fake names.
[Stephen Hand]: Then at least be consistent in refusing to make critical distrinctions and boycott all who sell even Belloc's books, since he made statements almost identical as Fahey and his book on the "problem" of the Jews is very offensive to many.
As to Belloc and Chesterton and their controversial remarks on the Jews, this is best addressed by expert biographers -- the one springing to mind being Joseph Pearce who has done a remarkable job writing on the lives of "literary Catholics."
I personally recommmend Pearce's Wisdom and Innocence: A Life of G. K. Chesterton, pp. 441-451 of which address Chesterton's response to the rise of National Socialism, the charge of anti-semitism, and -- Derek Holland, please take note -- Chesterton's concerns over The Distributist League's involvement with British Fascism.
While I haven't yet read Pearce's biography on Belloc (Old Thunder: A Life of Hilaire Belloc). Having read Pearce on Chesterton, I trust he will do him similar justice.
At the same time, the biographer Michael Coren wrote:
Belloc’s polemics did periodically drift into the realms of bigotry, but he was invariably a tenacious opponent of philosophical anti-Semitism, ostracized friends who made attacks upon individual Jews, and was an inexorable enemy of fascism and all its works, speaking out against German anti-Semitism before the National Socialists came to power.
(as quoted in , by Michael Morassutti. Catholic Dossier May/June 1998.
If Stephen wants to make the case for considering Belloc's views on the Jews 'of a piece' with Fahey, Coughlin, Sharpe, et al. he may do so -- personally, I do not envision Belloc an enthusiastic member of the Legion of St. Louis were he alive today.
[Stephen Hand]: Yes, for a while I have felt we've said and accomplished what was intended at TCR. Friends convinced me otherwise and that a simple break was better. I tend to agree (ask me and I'll send you privately the requests).
No need, Stephen -- I was just personally surprised at your "calling it quits" one day and furiously commenting on this post the next. The future of TCRNews.com is up to you and I trust you'll know best.
Note to all -- I've tried to responded to Stephen on what I believe are his main points of criticism of my post and John Sharpe, Fr. Fahey, etc.
I have no desire to get into an extended discussion of Chomsky, Buchanan, Sobran, Belloc -- much less a grade-school spat over whose blog/website is better or 'more Catholic' -- a tactic he has tried on many an occasion (Parting Thoughts on the Hand/Mockeridge Debate, Conditions for Dialogue Against The Grain May 30, 2005).
Not worth it.
On the issue of concealing your identities -- I happen to agree with Stephen, my personal preference is that all commentators identify themselves by their real names, as I like to dialogue with real people rather than an "anonymous" ghost. =)
Noting that 'Prolife Mom' has identified herself as 'Amanda', that is certainly good enough for me (as I hope it will be for Stephen) and I will give her the benefit of the doubt.
(Welcome Amanda, I don't believe I've seen you before on this blog).
I do not, of course, say the juvenile thing you accuse here: that "my website is "better" than yours". Pleeeze---only that at your website there are only entirely predictable replies in almost all matters (whereas your opponents seek a critical engagement with issues which means agreeing and disagreeing in substantial areas even with "allies"). It is also only to note that you cynically pardon or pass over in silence the most grievous blunders and vile Ad hominems of your friends---you are well known for this, Chris in case you didn't know---while accusing others.
Now, your ignoring the alleged "antisemitism" of Chomsky, Belloc and some of the Fathers (even the above cited First Things Kingoffer article!) in this discussion is, as you must know, to avoid the most substantial meat of this dicussion; and it makes further discussion meaningless. Applying different and uncritical standards of "antisemitism" to these and to Fr. Fahey is quite remarkable, and linking anti-zionism (where treatment of the occupation of Palestine and all that flows from it is the issue) to Hitlerian "antisemitism" is gross obfuscation. A catch-all smear really.
To describe all this as "tangential" is clearly tactical and, again, a shortcut around serious thought.
It has been clear from the beginning that you have pulled in Matt Anger (who opposed Catholic social activism in The Remnant as being merely a ruse for "anti-government" activity!) as a cheap, uncritical, attack on the contents and arguments of the Neoconned volumes.
This is also the reason you and your friends have been so preoccupied with TCR---using the most fallacious and ridiculous arguments and ignoring replies---because we oppose your positions regarding Mr. Bush, the Vatican's prudential position on the war and on how to handle terrorism ( http://www.zenit.org/english/aud...phtml?
sid=24822 )...
So I guess we are indeed done here since you have refused the substantive issues again in favor of smoke and fog.
BTW, my offer to debate you, Shawn and Gregg on this war any time and anyplace remains open.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
controve...roversies1.html
Peace
[Stephen Hand]: Applying different and uncritical standards of "antisemitism" to these and to Fr. Fahey is quite remarkable, and linking anti-zionism (where treatment of the occupation of Palestine and all that flows from it is the issue) to Hitlerian "antisemitism" is gross obfuscation.
If you bothered to read prior comments by myself, you'll note that I have recognized -- here, for instance, and throughout the course of this discussion -- that one cannot necessarily equate "anti-Zionism" or criticism of Israel with racial or Nazi-esque anti-semitism.
Given that uber-neocon Deal Hudson has published criticism of Israel (A City Divided: How Israel’s Wall Is Splitting the Holy Land Crisis January 2005) it would be counterproductive of me to do so, wouldn't it?
But at this time I'm concerned with John Sharpe and Derek Holland -- NOT Chomsky, NOT Buchanan, NOT Sobran. Deal with the connections of Matt Sharpe's investigation. (Note: on the other hand, Fr. Fahey, Fr. Coughlin and Michael Hoffman II are relevant as each of these authors are sold on LSL's website -- interesting how all Catholic radtrads with a preoccupation with the Jews appeal to such authors; see Bill Cork's Anti-Semitism and the Catholic Right).
To describe all this as "tangential" is clearly tactical and, again, a shortcut around serious thought.
If you want to further discuss your defense of Buchanan and Chomsky, by all means we can do so at another time.
[Stephen Hand]: It has been clear from the beginning that you have pulled in Matt Anger . . . as a cheap, uncritical, attack on the contents and arguments of the Neoconned volumes.
I was not aware of Matt Anger's investigation until he contacted me, noting my prior posts on radtrads and anti-semitism (Vennari, Sungenis, Catholic Family News, et al.). John Sharpe seems to be of like mind with the others, hence my interest in the subject. I deemed it a legitimate concern.
Of course, I expected the very moment I posted my sympathy with Anger's investigation that said concerns about IHS Press would be probably dismissed -- by you, of course -- as due to my views on the war in Iraq.
Consequently, in writing the post, I sought out the advice and criticism of others I knew who were themselves vigorously opposed to the Iraq war, inviting them to review and critique the post prior to publication.
They agreed that Anger's investigation had raised issues of legitimate concern and should be publicized.
[Stephen Hand:] This is also the reason you and your friends have been so preoccupied with TCR
The last public engagement with TCRNews.com on this blog was back in September, 2005.
Granted, I have criticized TCRNews.com on my other two blogs last year -- the last instances being Toward a Proper Understanding of Neoliberalism Religion and Liberty October 2005; "War of Aggression?" Just War? Oct. 12, 2005, but I can't rightly say it is a "preoccupation" of mine, noting the general content of my other posts.
But my readers can judge for themselves.
As to debating the war, I've found James Turner Johnson's The War to Oust Saddam Hussein: The Context, The Debate, The War and the Future excellent reading.
(Indeed, my idea of a rollicking debate would be James Turner Johnson vs. John Sharpe and co., but it's not likely to happen).
[Stephen Hand]: So I guess we are indeed done here . . .
Praise God! Let it be so!
So I guess we are indeed done here . . .Chris: Praise God! Let it be so!
So let it be written. So let it be done!
:-) God bless, my brother!
Liberating the Iraqis was absolutely the right thing to do. If your neighbor is being raped, and tortured on a systematic basis, do you turn your back? I dont care if your neighbor is in the apartment next door, or 20000 miles away. To turn your back, as these liberation theologist suggest, is not Christlike.
George
Though any number of errors and misunderstandings could be pointed out in Mr. Hand's natterings on this thread, this one is admittedly one I cannot resist dealing with so here goes:
The Jews have their interests (which does not include allowing Palestinians who lived in Palestine for 2,000 years to return and compete in a real democracy, as even liberal Jews themselves lament) as all groups do.
If Ye All Knowing Handness knew his history, he would know that Palestine was named by the British after the Balfour Declaration and included all inhabitants of the areas including the Jews!!! Most of the land that later was made into the state of Israel was owned by the Jewish settlers who settled there in the nineteenth century and developed the desolate territory into a habitable one.
Furthermore, there were more Jews than Arabs in Israel prior to 1939 when Britain (who controlled the territory at the time under the auspices of the League of Nations) curtailed Jewish immigration but did nothing to check the massive infiltration of Arabs after that time.
By 1948, there were more Arabs than Jews but the creation of the state of Israel was not a taking of land from the Arabs to give to the Jews as the historically ignorant assert. Instead, it was a recognition of the previous century of Jewish emigration to the area and obtaining the land fair and square.
Those called the "Palestinians" today were the late arrivals on the scene and they were not there "for 2000 years." It is really difficult to take seriously those who make these kinds of assertions. But then again, Santayana's dictum was not enunciated without reason and it was because far too many people do not care to study and learn from actual history but prefer to believe whatever revisionist nonsense confirms their particular ideology.
Ye All Knowing Handness ....hehe
While we are at it, let us touch on a few others in no particular order...
Homework: Try to figure our the difference between the celibacy suggestion and opposition to the Vatican / Pope on the war.
Simple. The celibacy requirement is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline which falls under the prerogatives of papal primacy and the viewpoints on the war do not. Another way of saying it is that the celibacy position falls at least indirectly under the rubric of Lumen Gentium 25 requiring religious submission and the position on the war does not: a distinction with a difference.
apart from some interesting incidental matters, found it deficient on the major issues it sought to address, being knee-jerk uncritical with regard to things political; it was an ideologically driven diatribe which strained at the gnats and ignored the brutal facts
The above is a good self-diagnosis of much of your own work Stephen. I have always thought your best stuff is when you stay away from geopolitical issues and focus on more mystical stuff. Teilhard was no theologian but he wrote very poetically...your best stuff has the same traits to it. However, poets are like artists and both of them do not as a rule make good geopolitical commentators.
To be continued...
Continued from a previous thread...
Some of your most influential neocon mentors have left you behind
Since you raise that derisive epithet once again as a shibboleth, how about explaining it for the benefit of others??? Or have you forgotten about that challenge as well...your bobbing and weaving on the matter would put Jack Dempsey, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Muhammed Ali to shame :(
To be continued...
This is also the reason you and your friends have been so preoccupied with TCR---using the most fallacious and ridiculous arguments and ignoring replies
Stephen, I have not read TCR since October of last year except to check things people have sent to me. The last time I read your site was in composing the four questions I set forth for you to answer at that time and I did so because David Jones deleted the threads from his site where I originally got your statements.{2} I challenge you for the ninth time since October to be a man and be accountable for your past statements. And if my work is so shoddy and seventh-rate as you claim, you should be able to prove it by responding substantively to those questions. {3} And while you are at it, you can respond to
the "neo-con" challenge to explain what a so-called "neo-con" is and define your use of terms rather than continue to lazily throw an undefined term around as you have a very bad habit of doing.
To be continued...
Continued from a previous thread (though footnotes two and three should be numbered one and two)...
Shawn thinks the A-bomb on Japan was morally justified.
The bombings as conducted can be justified by Catholic moral and ethical principles yes. I recognize that some may well disagree with this assessmen and I have no problem with that.
Thus far though, the only one who has disagreed with me on that matter who has actually sought to keep the subject civil and make actual arguments against what I wrote (and not throw out a slew of argumentation fallacies and various polemical devices) was Jim Scott. I obviously do not agree with his arguments and he does not agree with mine but we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Incidentally that is what Catholics are supposed to do with issues where there is no Catholic doctrine involved.
Now there's discernment!
Well, if you knew how to utilize reason and logic properly, you would realize that yes, there was discernment involved in coming to that conclusion.
The Popes called it butchery.
Of course it is doubtful that the popes have looked into these matters as I have done Stephen...they have a trillion other things on their plate. Furthermore, I have been privy to information going into those decisions that the popes were not and are not. But that is neither here nor there.
As far as the decrying of death by the popes after those bombings, how could they do otherwise Stephen??? Death is never to be celebrated; however, sometimes it happens in the course of just or otherwise morally acceptable circumstances. The popes also decried the distruction of WWII: a just war opposed to both Nazi and Japanese military aggression. I would frankly be concerned if any pope ever celebrated wartime destruction and loss of life. Even just wars and legitimate military targets/maneuvers can result in the loss of life. That does not mean though that the war so fought or the military targets/maneuvers are therefore unacceptable.
But Shawn knows better than any pope!
Notice the logical fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam here in appealing to the authority and the latter's opinions or conclusions rather than assessing their actual arguments for merit or lack thereof.
To be continued...
Continued from a previous post...
You will find we agree and differ with Catholic Workers in some points, antiwar activists in some points, neocons in some points, progressives in some points, even the Vatican in some points...etc, etc. That was called critical thinking when I went to school, Chris.
Guess what Stephen??? I agree and disagree with a panopoly of people and groups too. Agreement and disagreement in and of itself does not ipso factp constitute "critical thinking" though...
You accused me of "sedition". Remember that?
Yes I do and I meant every syllable of it.
After Horowitz's site accused Justion Raimondo of the same thing and threatened him with death. Read it.
I first explicitly blogged on the issue of sedition three years ago which was long before David Horowitz said anything about Justin Raimondo.
Furthermore, I am well aware of what the penalty for those convicted of sedition could be Mr. Hand. I do not believe threatening anyone (even someone as distasteful as Justin Raimondo) with death is a good idea; ergo if that is what Horowitz did{3} then he was wrong to do it. However, Horowitz is right that Raimondo certainly engages in seditious behaviour but the proper approach to that is to reinstate the sedition act and try such people under the law. And (of course) not all who are found guilty of sedition are necessarily to be given the same penalty as there are degrees involved here as well.
Honestly, you remind me of those who say that because I oppose abortion and believe it is murder that I therefore must favour convicting as murderers every woman or girl who has ever gotten an abortion.{4} It is not that simple and the subject of sedition is no different.
To be continued...
And Shawn is supposed to be considered seriously?? Pleeeze.
Why should anyone take you seriously Stephen??? I at least make viable arguments for my positions which others can look at and assess on their merits. By stark contrast, you engage in a panopoly of logical fallacies and expect those with a normal intact functioning brain to take you seriously.
He burns incense to false gods and the imperium and would turn Christians in to the State, one fears.
Genuine Christians are not seditionists Mr. Hand. If you knew your church history very well you would know this. However, reacting without reasoning is your stock in trade; ergo you make assertions akin to the above. I have never made an assertion about you or anyone else that I have not substantiated by argument Stephen. By the starkest of contrasts, you make unsubstantiated assertions about me and others all the time. Whether your approach or mine is the more Christian one I will leave for the readers to decide...I have no doubt how most casual readers would decide the matter.
As far as the so-called "neo-conned" series, I have said it many times before and I say it again Stephen: I have seen very little (to put it nicely) in the way of substantive argumentation from your camp and that includes the persons who wrote articles for the book you are speaking of. It has gotten to the point to where I have handed over to a friend of mine arguments to use against me in a dialogue we will have on the war to persuade them to take up the mantle and represent the antiwar side intelligently. But enough on that matter for now.
To be continued...
Continued from a previous post...
The answer Shawn is to turn your intellect in humility to the Gospels, not to George Bush; to the Church, not to Rumsfeld; to the Pope, not to Michael Novak and Richard John Neuhaus and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
You know Mr. Hand, you betray your ignorance of my views everytime you open your mouth about me. If you were paying attention at all, you would know that I am hardly a fan of President Bush's at all. Nor do I care much for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a rule. I also am not a disciple of Michael Novak's{5} and I think Rumsfeld is hit and miss. And while I do read Fr. Neuhaus; nonetheless, he and I do not always see eye to eye on issues.
AFurthermore, you once again tacitly presume that the pope by virtue of his office has a special charism for geopolitical matters. I have explained many times before why an objective assessment of church history (including recent church history) should disabuse any sane person of this naiveity but you continue to perpetuate it. You certainly have that right but do not expect those who respect logic and reason to go along with your "logic" since the latter sorts do not respect the antics of SNUFS{6} like you.
To be continued...
But since agreement wherever it can be found should be acknowledged, I want to conclude this thread by concurring with Stephen and Christopher that Dale Vree and NOR are not antisemitic (their other problems aside for a moment).
Thread Notes:
{1} That made it necessary in my mind to see if you duplicated any of those statements on your site so I could link to them.
{2} I added the word "substantively" so that you do not get it into your head that any response to those questions will suffice.
{3} Assuming that is what he said of course: your trackrecord for accurately representing the views of other people or properly citing sources is hardly something a normal person would be proud of (to put it nicely).
{4} I heard that schtick again when listening to your allies on the so-called "progressive" radio network while I was smacking around the punching bag at the gym yesterday.
{5} I am not against the man, I have simply read very little of his stuff over the years and his influence on my outlook is miniscule if at all for that reason.
{6} Miscellaneous Notes on the Unsavoury Antics of Certain Catholic Personages
I apologize for all the broken threads in the postings above. They and certain text glitches in the parts will be corrected and blogged to Rerum Novarum in full tomorrow time-willing. (And the completed thread will be posted here once that happens.)
I thought this was all over with? Pardon me for ignoring Shawn...
Speaking of all this. Just found out that Thomas Herron has a website now. Isn't he a suspect too, along with E. Michael Jones?
http://www.catholicneoconobserve...r.blogspot.com/
Found there that Joseph Pearce was once a skinhead (say what?) arrested (!) for racist incidents (I think in the UK) and Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute also has a colorful (pink---huh?) past?
Man...
Someone should remind Mr Hand of the Catholic concept of Redemption....ah yes, the logical fallacies of the Hand continue to mount....
Dude.......
[Stephen Hand]: . . . Found there that Joseph Pearce was once a skinhead (say what?) arrested (!) for racist incidents (I think in the UK) and Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute also has a colorful (pink---huh?) past?
Stephen, you certainly reveal yourself by those remarks.
1) If you had been paying any attention to this combox discussion and your dialogue with me, you'll note that I had used Joseph Pearce's past as an example of conversion:
There are some contemporary Catholics who have outgrown their anti-semitic or neo-fascist roots -- Matt Anger is one of them, being a former member of the British National Front in the 1980's; and from what I recall, Catholic biographer Joseph Pearce is another. Unfortunately, neither Sharpe nor Holland have provided evidence that they have distanced themselves from and repudiated these kind of views. That should be of concern.
2) Regarding Fr. Sirico -- please, don't even bother feigning suprise. Fact is, you published Thomas Herron's hatchet-job on him on TCRMusings last year (September 18, 2005, to be precise) -- in which you deliberately slandered the good name of a priest for no other reason than that you opposed his founding of The Acton Institute and promotes an economic philosophy counter to yours.
If memory of this incident happens to fail you I can send you a copy of your entire post -- but I suggest you apologize and call it quits.
Mr Hand, you are really a very small man for personally attacking people who have obviously converted.....it is a good thing that TCR News is going away, it is completely irrelevant.
Good day sir, you are ignored.
If you had been paying any attention to this combox discussion....
1. Regarding Joseph Pearce and Fr. Sirico, whoever said otherwise, Chris? Of course this was not "news" to me. It was placed here exactly to show with some shock precisely how former association (I don't know about sexual orientation) do not cement a man's current reputation as you and friends do so regularly.
2. That you and your friends do not see the relevance to the discussion reflects on you, not on me. Pardon me for not having the time to read every post.
3. Look for smears at TCR, if you wish. You will see facts, not smears, unlike here at this war front.
Get a grip man. But you seem to react exceedingly strongly to Thomas Herron's deconstructing of the smearing tactics performed so consistently here.
GSV, yes, yes, you have been so "objective" about this discussion from the first.
Herron does a service in those posts. Others besides you need to see what does not follow from your smearing tactics ---and how many others would be tarnished if they used the very same smearing methodology. Matt Anger himself, no?. I'll bet you and especially Shawn would suffer (no?) too, if others interpreted you through the lens of previous associations.
You had better learn the relevance.
Ask Matt Anger what he was writing to others about the worth Fr. Fahey's writings not very long ago indeed. Absolving Fahey of the very charges made here! You might be surprised. This is a simple fact.
I disagree with Fr. Fahey's particular schema, whatever others may think, whether they agree with me on the war or on who the fianciers of Antichristic values are or not. I don't need to agree with them to want to assist the victims of your methods against the smear methodology and against what does not follow from your charges used from day one in this thread and at you and your friends websites.
If you care about your own reputation, Chris, Shawn, James Scott, you had better scrap this smearing approach. For with what measure you judge, you shall be publicly judged.
It leads nowhere constructive, which is precisely Herron's point.
Every power has its interests, and that often invloves deconstructing the interests of competing powers. That was the kernel of truth in Fahey. The rest was, in my opinion, largely wrong and too simple. Christians sought to undermine Jews and Jews sought to undermine Christendom. Those days should be long gone as we attend to the real powers today which are making the world safe for McDonalds and Hugh Hefner, powers far more mundane in their still very powerful determination to demolish western civilization as we knew it and which both Chesterton and Bellow and so many others warned against.
PS I discovered only yesterday Thomas Herron had a website (he informed me after he told me he read this thread)
[Stephen Hand:] Herron does a service in those post.
You are free to defend Thomas Herron / Culture Wars and give their slanders against Fr. Sirico and others a pedestal on your blog, Stephen, but I won't permit you to do so here.
Incidentally, Herron likens your reaction to Dale Vree's article "What is a Neoconservative?" (New Oxford Review Dec. 2006) "the speed of Pavlov's dogs to the bell, whenever anyone uses the word Jewish and neocon in the same sentence" . . . so in a sense we're all in this together. ;-)
[Stephen Hand:] Look for smears at TCR, if you wish. You will see facts, not smears.
If that is the case, Stephen, why did you give a public pedestal to Thomas Herron's slanderous attacks on Fr. Sirico by reproducing them on your blog in September 2006 and join them with your own?
When I first raised the concerns about John Sharpe and Derek Holland, a mutual friend of ours responded that I was duty-bound by the force of my argument to remove Jacques Maritain from my website because "he and his wife (Raïssa) DIRECTLY supported and aided a well-known anti-Semite, Charles Maurras, for 15 years."
I replied that a fair assessment of Maritain's preoccupation with the Jews would not be found in The New Republic (which he had cited) but rather Robert Royale's "Jacques Maritain and the Jews" (reviewed by Rabbi David Dalin, First Things January 1996), in which we find that
Time and again, Maritain publicly condemned the anti-Semitism of the Nazi era, calling the legislation of Vichy France "treason against the French spirit." In his 1939 work A Christian Looks at the Jewish Question, Maritain wrote scathingly of the anti-Semitic lies spreading in Europe and denounced as a forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Fact is, we also learn from Richard Francis Crane's "Maritain's True Humanism" First Things February 2005 that
a papal condemnation of Maurras led to Maritain's definitive break with the Action Française coterie, a rupture that has been portrayed ever since as both traumatic and liberating. The bitterness of the Action Française controversy helped to make Maritain more open to the virtues of parliamentary democracy; it moved him away from the extreme rancor of some of his earlier antibourgeois and antiliberal diatribes.
Suffice to say Maritain's perceptions of the Jews evolved over time and would likely repudidate a conspiracy-minded preoccupation with the Jews which is now perpetuated by Sharpe, Holland, Sungenis, E. Michael Jones and certain parties within the SSPX (Bishop Williamson, for example).
Was Joseph Pearce a member of the white-supremacist National Front and the Orange Order? -- yes, as he freely admits. (Joseph Pearce Visits the Bay Area San Francisco Faith July / August 2003).
Did Matt Anger have "up close and personal" familiarity with the organizations he has criticized, reproved and is now investigating? -- Yes, as he freely admits on his blog.
Now, I think it entirely possible that John Sharpe and Derek Holland could in fact repudiate their views and disassociate themselves from their organizations in the manner that Maritain broke with Action Française, or Matt Anger or Joseph Pearce with their ideological past.
Unfortunately, they haven't yet, and show no sign of doing so.
Hence my concern.
P.S. We're going on 215+ comments now . . .
I think I've said what needed to be said -- in responding to David Jones' query here and in my subsequent discussion w. Stephen Hand.
Having rescinded his earlier announcement that he was giving up his post at TCRNews.com, Stephen should feel free to continue with his observations on his own blog.
But it's Sunday, and it's Lent -- and I think it's time to recognize that this combox conversation has run its course.
I'm headed off to Mass. When I get back, I'll probably take a break from the computer and settle down with some good refreshing Lenten reading.
It is my recommendation that others do the same. God bless.
Chris:
I agree with you. The weblog thread I mentioned posting is available for reading here:
Responding to Various Assertions of Stephen Hand
I do not anticipate saying any more on these matters in this thread unless Stephen actually takes up the challenges made to him.
Until then, there is better things to do including Lenten reading as you recommend above.
I don't understand Mr. Hand. Why all of the personal attacks on people who have obviously converted? Some of our most famous saints have been mortal sinners(Augustine, St Paul, etc etc). What does Mr Hand hope to accomplish by pointing out the sinful nature of many people, many of whom have been redeemed and converted?
Mr Hand certainly brings this entire conversation to a very immature and sophomoric level.
Bev
Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
case closed
Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
case closed
Not when you're dealing with a cafeteria Catholic like Stephen Hand.
I have no problem as a Catholic with Stephen's politicial views. He is entitled to them. But I wish Stephen would conform his mind to that of the future Pope. Follow his OWN ADVICE as it were.........
I have read all of the comments so far regarding the IHS Press controversy.
I have read the claims, counter-claims and accusations made between Hand on one side and Blosser and McElhinney on the other.
I have read the smears made against Jones, Gruner, Sungenis, Vennari et al. in the course of the above.
And I feel disgust at all of it and the views expressed from it.
I am numbed by it all, as if my blood were replaced by novacain. (Apologies for any misspelling of the last word.)
So to all of this, I reply using a line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:
"A plague on BOTH your houses: they've made worm's meat of me."
God forgive us all, for no one else will.
In the Lord,
Rufus
Liar.
Prove it, sir.
Please note to all that Deacon Fournier has long been back on board at TCR
http://tcrnewscom.blogspot.com/2...n-board-
at.html
When I discovered that Herron was misrepresenting rumors as facts about more than a few persons he was quickly dismissed and the post regarding Sirico quickly removed. Others continue to investigate Sirico. I will not report on the matter until verifiable facts are established one way or the other. Until then he has the benefit of the doubt.
But neither should any be approved simply because they support a certain view of economics or war, etc. I would apply this rule to antiwar advocates as well.
Commenting by HaloScan
