A well known friend of mine (who doesn't seem to be speaking to me at the moment) might just say Horowitz is being emotional & that he is not a qualified Catholic Theologian & thus is not able to recognize the anti-Semitism because he has the secret ADL report.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 07.31.03 - 4:31 pm | #

Darn my grammer it should read "because he DOESN't HAVE the secret ADL report".
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 07.31.03 - 4:47 pm | #

Ben,

I actually find the spelling and grammar booboos of others heartening, as then I don't feel so alone....

As for Mel's film, I am counting the days tell Lent! This movie may just prove to be a real cultural turning point for our poor paganized civilization. I pray to God that it will be so.
John Hearn | 07.31.03 - 5:16 pm | #

So how is the instrument of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy here. You need a game program to keep up with the changing, secret alliances. And Saddam is out confirming the "deaths" of his sons - which is also a lie of the conspiracy. It is so deep that Saddam Hussein is involved. I am getting chills. I might not even realize that I am a member of the conspiracy. It boggles the mind.
Norm | 07.31.03 - 6:05 pm | #

Good news about Horowitz, but let's apply the same yardstick to everyone, please. A Jew saying that some allegedly anti-Jewish material is not in fact anti-Jewish = "unbiased", "open-minded", "ecumenical", "non-triumphalist", etc. But a Catholic saying that some allegedly anti-Catholic material is not in fact anti-Catholic = "Stockholm syndrome", "self-hating", "Vichy Catholic", etc, etc. Please, guys, be consistent.
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 7:25 pm | #

Tom:

It's amazing how you manage to turn every other conversation into some sort of point-scoring game against some imaginary Catholic apologist out there. I don't believe I've ever used the term "vichy Catholic" nore "self-hating Catholic". I use the term "Stockholm Syndrome" to refer to those Catholics who think that the solution to the Church's ills is to hew more closely than ever to the suggestions of people like Paul Shanley that we jettison the Church's moral teaching and the rest of the Tradition in order to make way for the Reign of Appetite. I doubt you think that's a good idea, so what's with the point-scoring?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.31.03 - 7:40 pm | #

Okay, how about I reduce it from one conversation in two to only one in four ...

Seriously, though.

Okay, maybe not you, but there are quite a number of Catholic writers out there who'll automatically disallow any criticism made by a Prot (or other non-C) because "they're biased against the Church and don't understand it" -- but when shown the same criticisms made by self-identified Catholics (Greeley, Carroll, Wills, Sullivan) they'll still disallow them because "they're just seeking to curry favour with the world outside the Church." In other words, their faith can become self-sealing, which is dangerous. This sort of guy may be a stylised figure (to avoid naming names), but not an imaginary one.

The problem is, though, that there would be no shortage of Jews who would, in fact, make the same criticism against Horowitz or Medved ("they just want to encourage the Religious Right to keep backing Israel!").
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 8:07 pm | #

Tom,
Give me pratical example. That would help ya know.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 07.31.03 - 8:26 pm | #

Ben Y: I'll have a trawl through my archives and Google and give you names, names, names.
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 8:42 pm | #

I think that Tom is right that some Jews would say that there is perhaps unconscious pressure on Jews to minimize differences with Christians for various reasons. To take an example from a serious scholar who cannot be accused of an animus towards Christianity, Jon Levenson has criticized the document Dabru Emet in Commentary for such motivations:

'For the thrust of this statement is to make the two communities look as alike as two peas in a single religious pod. Both, we are told, pray to "the same God," appeal to "the same book" (from which they "take away similar lessons"), and abide by the same "moral principles"--in fact, the "moral principles of Torah." Moreover, both were the targets (if with a difference in chronology) of the Nazis' "murderous rage," and both can now appreciate God's gift of the Land of Israel to the Jews. Although the statement mentions disagreements and asks that they be respected, it is hard to come away from it without feeling that the nearly two thousand years of Jewish-Christian disputation were based on little more than the narcissism of small differences.

'Is it mere coincidence that the recent rapprochement between Jews and Christians has been accompanied by soaring rates of intermarriage, and by a striking acceptance of this demographic calamity on the part of many Jewish organizations? If, as we are now told, the commonalities between the two religions really are so basic, and so encompassing, why indeed should intermarriage, or for that matter conversion to Christianity, be resisted as strenuously as their tradition has long enjoined Jews to do?'

Regarding political support for Israel:

'"Christians," we are given to understand, "can respect the claim of the Jewish people upon the land of Israel." The modal verb in this thesis gives a lot of wiggle room. Since many Christians do in fact respect the Jewish claim (while others do not), who would deny that they "can"?

'What this assertion seemingly means to tell Christians is that they should support Israel. In particular, it applauds those who embrace the Jewish state "for reasons more profound than mere politics." The question, however, is what those reasons are. The only one stipulated here is that "Israel was promised ... to the Jews as the physical center of the covenant between them and God." But what about those Christians, hardly few in number, who support Israel because they see the ingathering of the Jewish exiles as a necessary prelude to the second coming of Jesus and the conversion of all Israel to Christianity? Do the Jewish authors of Dabru Emet welcome the views of these Christians as well, or is there something deeply problematic in their theology? On this they are awkwardly silent.'

Please note that I am not supporting one side or the other, I am simply stating a fact. Tom is right, I think, when he says, "The problem is, though, that there would be no shortage of Jews who would, in fact, make the
Neil Dhingra | 07.31.03 - 9:26 pm | #

Neil, thanks for your concurrence in part (though watch that 3000-character limit -- has a disparate impact on us Verbosity Challenged), but you do know that you're only saying that because, like Lord Acton, you won't be appointed a judge unless you deny Papal infallibility ...(-;
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 9:54 pm | #

Seriously, should add that almost any group will have members who dismiss criticisms of the group by other members on the grounds that they've sold out, either subconsciously (wanting approval) or explicitly (wanting riches, power, social advancement).

Speaking of which -- I didn't know about Jonson, but the little I know of Donne, social advancement followed rather than caused his conversion. Look at the _marrano_ converts in Spain; at least some of them must have been honestly persuaded of the truth of Catholicism.
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 9:59 pm | #

Sorry, just checked, Donne was mentioned on a different thread.
Tom Round | 07.31.03 - 10:00 pm | #

Tom,

Hope to see that pratical example soon. So we can deal with something concret & not something abstract.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 08.01.03 - 9:18 am | #

St. Teresa of Avila's family were conversos. The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews or Muslims who claimed to be Jews and Muslims. The witness of Madre Teresa's life and writings show me that it was a sincere conversion, at least for her.

In America, it is not the same to be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. The first is accepted because people think America is a Protestant country--that's what they mean when they say it's a Christian country. (I would disagree fiercely; even the concept of "inalienable rights" is a "Catholic invention"--of Spanish Inquisition-era Spanish Catholic theologians!)

The first can be who they are. There is pressure to minimize one's catholicity, jewishness, or islamicity (?); to assimilate, blend in, quit being so different, melt into the pot. In the case of Catholics and Jews, the assimilation project has been fairly successful. The last group is a complicated thing to consider after 9-11-01.

However, even in the Protestant world, there is the same kind of dynamic going on. They are sharing the same struggle with the post-Christian culture, the broad span of assimilationists to strict fundamentalists, and they have choice words for each other.

I say: read the Bible. Israel and Judah, wheat and tares! Look at history. We ain't in heaven yet. Let the family squabbles continue! And bless God for our gifts of intellect and free will!

I better stop now before I hit that 3000 limit...I too can be verbose.
Elizabeth | 08.01.03 - 9:24 am | #

Horowitz is a (or was a) Jew? Right?

Maybe Satan is afraid of the impact that this movie will have upon modern day (not modernist) Jews?

OK. We have a sample point of two people - Horowitz and Medved - not that large - but they both seem to walk away from this movie and are impressed by how Jewish Jesus really was. They both see that he was devout and can sense his Messiah-ness.

I predict that this movie's place in history will be known not for what it did for Christianity - but for what it did for Judeism!

Just guessing, but Medved and other Jews who see this movie will be both exhilerated and torn at the same time. (Similar to what happens to an Evangelical who finally realizes that the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon, but the one true Church founded by Christ) But for Jews, it is a much more difficult journey.

Seems kinda timely that the Holy Father made some recent eccumenical gestures toward Judeism.
Paul Scheibmeir | 08.01.03 - 10:37 am | #

Elizabeth:

I generally agree with you, but as to Protties being able to "be who they are" exists only because who they are seems to constantly change to reflect the current secular culture. If you want to be a Protestant that affirms "old-fashioned" teachings such as the sinfulness of homosexuality, abortion, contraception, etc., you have just as much pressure to minimize this part of your "Protestantism" as any Catholic (see, eg, Falwell, Jerry; Graham, Billy; etc.).
c matt | 08.01.03 - 12:30 pm | #

With regard to the term "Vichy Catholic", I believe it was I who first used it on this blog, in reference to James Carroll (I did not coin the term, however; the credit for that goes to C.J. Doyle, in this article that appeared in the March 2000 issue of Catholic World Report). I stand by my description, having followed James Carroll's articles and statements since 1992. The reason that I am so contemptuous of Carroll and his ilk and do not extend that contempt to Protestants who might hold similar positions to Carroll is that I believe those Protestants are sincerely interested in knowing the why behind the Church's beliefs; Carroll knows the truth and does not care. Carroll and those like him are perfectly prepared to sacrifice the truth to get what they want- case in point being his smear of Pius XII in his continuing efforts to undermine the authority of the Papacy.
Carroll has sold out, and I make no appologies for how I have labled him.
Dennis_Mahon | 08.01.03 - 4:06 pm | #

Sorry, was off for weekend.

James -- Dennis has covered my point so I yield. Mark -- some of your usages of "Stockholm Syndrome" seem broader than this but if you are using it as a "term of art", then I bow to your stipulative definition.

Main example I had in mind (buried somewhere in the archives) was a book reveiwer of Jenkins' "Anti-Catholicism" who said, at the end of a generally favourable review, something like: maybe there's some explanation for 19th-century American hostility to Catholicism, given that at that time official Catholic doctrine was cool about democracy, religious non-establishment, and other US founding principles. Mark's comment was that the Know-Nothings didn't burn convents because they were fuzzy tolerant unitarian types, and that this reviewer was evidencing S~ S~. I was travelling at time so didn't reply then. Very briefly: Both are true. 19th-c Catholicism _was_ not easily compatible with American values (at least in its rhetoric, from Head Office, from what I've read of it) _and_ 19th-c American Prots did persecute RCs unjustifiably. Analogy: just because neo-Nazi thugs harass Muslim women in _hijab_, doesn't mean Islam is a liberal religion. Liberals can still act illiberally towards illiberals. It's no "selling out" for someone to say: "I believe that my own religion is excessively thin-skinned about X". Well, not always.

PS: And yes I think James Carroll over-states his case grossly.
Tom Round | 08.02.03 - 6:53 am | #

An additional thought on the “Vichy Catholics” discussion … Protestants don’t seem to be correspondingly as troubled “Vichy Protestants”. Four possible reasons:

(a) Denominational divisions: Any damning historical criticism of one section of Protestantism will often be praised by other Protestants of different stripes. Dave Hunt, an Arminian, has a recent book out attacking Calvinism and John Calvin in terms that even Chesterton would think harsh.

(b) As Mark noted, Protestants are more ready to declare co-denominationalists “not true Christians” for doctrinal differences. Giving aid and comfort to the theological enemy (whether Catholics or atheists) by dwelling on the historical abuses of Protestantism _tout court _ would be enough to get someone written off as an apostate, a wolf in the fold.

(c) A cradle Catholic (which most of the Sullivan/ Carroll/ Wills “fifth column” seem to be; also Peter de Rosa, author of “Vicars of Christ? The Dark Side of the Papacy”; Edmund Campion – not the martyred Jesuit, but the Australian author of “Rockchoppers”; and Lucinda Vardy) who is dissatisfied with the predominant doctrines of the Catholic Church is still likely to remain a member of the organisation – at least much more likely than, say, a Baptist who becomes convinced that Protestants have historically been unfairly harsh to Catholics. (Phillip Jenkins is a partial exception, but not completely, since he’s more about defending Catholicism from all unfair criticism than about “doing a _Constantine’s Sword _” on Protestantism.) The numerical size of Catholicism gives it a much greater “gravitational pull” for both making converts and retaining members. A Presbyterian or Lutheran who was as dissatisfied with his or her own denomination as Carroll or Wills are with theirs, has no reason not to leave their denomination. By definition, Protestants already have a strong historical memory of having to leave denominations – once in the case of the “high Protestant” denominations, two or more times in the case of Methodists, Brethren, etc. Leaving one church and joining another seems much more thinkable. So an English Catholic who becomes convinced that Queen Mary was a bloody tyrant who unjustly martyred good Christian men is still unlikely to convert to Protestantism, but an English Catholic who becomes convinced that Queen Elizabeth I was a bloody tyrant who unjustly martyred good Christian men is very likely to convert to Catholicism.

(d) Those Catholics modernists who criticise Catholicism for being “repressive” and “reactionary” are also likely to be in favour of religious unity – they don’t like “sectarianism”. And now that the World Council of Churches is bent on self-implosion and irrelevance, Catholicism is the only contender left on the table
Tom Round | 08.02.03 - 8:39 am | #

[contd]

(d) Those Catholics modernists who criticise Catholicism for being “repressive” and “reactionary” are also likely to be in favour of religious unity – they don’t like “sectarianism”. Now that the World Council of Churches is bent on self-implosion and irrelevance, Catholicism is the only contender left on the table with any chance at becoming One Big Church that everyone can happily belong to while singing “Kumbaya”. However, Catholicism won’t fit that role if it insists on retaining “triumphalistic” or “exclusionary” doctrines (_Dominus Iesus, Humanæ Vitæ _, bans on gay clergy, insistence that Jesus is God, etc). Liberal Catholics know full well that a breakaway Liberal Catholic Church (Mark XIV) would vanish from the earth within a generation. So they are caught in a paradox: they attack Catholicism as it currently exists for being fascistic and repressive – while simultaneously insisting that the solution is _not _ to “come out of her, my people!”
Tom Round | 08.02.03 - 8:42 am | #

Interesting. Thank you Tom it will require some time for me to wrap my head around what your wrote.

Ha BenMiriam be with you.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 08.02.03 - 5:10 pm | #

Hi James, a minor codicil; should've said we don't seem to have "Vichy prots" who hang in there and snipe while they're in the minority (as the "Vichy Catholics" do do). Ours do, of course, happily stay in our denominations when they're in the majority and have the power!
Tom Round | 08.03.03 - 4:03 am | #