That document was on the web page for the ANGLICAN Jerusalem diocese, though it was signed also by the Latin patriarch, Michel Sabbah, as well as the heads of the Syrian Orthodox Church and the local Lutheran whatever-you-call-it.

Does the document also appear on the Latin patriarch's page? Does he even have a Web page?
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 2:11 pm | #

Mark,

What exactly is the Church teaching that is being ignored here?
Josiah | 08.31.06 - 2:15 pm | #

The Church's condemnation of nationalism and racialism - that's what!

I can HARDLY wait for the evangelical/fundamentalists to start screaming "APOSTASY! NON-CHRISTIAN! THE CORRUPT CHURCHES HAVE BROKEN GOD'S COVENANT!! GOD WILL CURSE YOUR CHURCHES WITH AIDS, SUICIDE BOMBERS, AND HURRICAINES!!!!!"
Jocasta ("Gomer") Meretrix | 08.31.06 - 2:31 pm | #

Ok, he does have a web page, http://www.j-diocese.com/bishop.htm, with lots of cool arabic writing, but so far I cannot find that document.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Grrrr...what de feck???? I thought I pasted the url for the LATIN patriarch's website, not the goramn heretic-anglican one. Let's try again:

http://www.lpj.org/newsite2006/
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 2:36 pm | #

It's a great statement of faith. I just wish that even though there is not a heirarchy in the Islamic faith, that some one or many imams in Palestine would have signed on to this!
Patricia | 08.31.06 - 2:38 pm | #

The statement in question refers not to nationalism and racialism, but to "Christian Zionism." Presumably this means something more than being a Christian and a Zionist, though what more is required is not made clear. Nor is it clear, if only a rejection of nationalism and racialism is meant, why Mark thinks the teaching is likley to be ignored. Surely Mark doesn't think that a significant number of Catholics today are racialists?
Josiah | 08.31.06 - 2:48 pm | #

Oh please. The fact that this twaddle was signed by Riah Abu El-Assal, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, as virulent an anti-Semite as there is in the world, means that this nonsense is good for lining one's bird cage. Nothing more.
Christopher Johnson | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 3:22 pm | #

Mark,

Your point here is confusing. Are you absorbing that document into 'church teaching'. Attaching that doc to your catechism quote, and then to your gloss, implies that the document in both its intent and points are not to be questioned.

That it is an 'ecumenical' statement (minus many Christian communities) makes it quite a stilted one. And, in its reading, begs many questions:

1. What of Hebrew Catholics?
2. Is there really such an entity called Palestinan Arab against other Arab groupings? What is the honest-to-goodness history here?
3. In the document, there is never any attempt to reference or discuss,in detail, the positions of Christian Zionism. But, granted, such position statements rarely do.
4. What is the actual threat posied by Christian Zionism? What political power do they weld over any eventual outcome.
5. If, at bottom, Christian Zionism (however exaggerated or wrongheaded it claims may be - and they can be) Christian Zionism, in its most charitable stance, is simply highlighting what in many Christian communities is being studiously ignored - the irrevocable covenant of God with the Jewish People. In that, they are doing the greater Church a favor. For the deeply ingrained bias (envy) of Palestinian Christians against that covenant is a grinding stone that has worn down that community for generations. Much is the pity.
6. Palestinian Christians (and not they alone) must come to terms with that irrevocable covenant: without sinking ones head in the sands of supersuccessionism.
7. 'Coming to terms' also includes accepting the true biblical understanding of the relationship between the Jew's irrevocable covenant and the Land. (Christian Zionism may, in an important way, get that relationship wrong; but that's not the primary issue - point 8 below is!)
8. Final point. If the 'historic' churches had 'come to terms' and taught, with great clairty and insistence, the proper understanding of God's irrevocable covenant with the Jews "Christian Zionism", so-called, would not have come into existence.
9. Final, final point! Among the many Palestinian Christians I know (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) the full embrace of the Old Testament as Scripture is a very troubling, difficult thing to do (in spite of the fact that their liturgies are bound to it).
Steve Golay | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 3:24 pm | #

Surely Mark doesn't think that a significant number of Catholics today are racialists?

So they're not? That would explain why so much of the laity is so on board with the Church's stance on migrants that the bishop of Denver is hosting church meetings on the controversial issue of Irish immigration. I guess that would explain why Pat Buchanan's announcement that the U.S. is now a third world nation was virtually ignored.

Oh wait ...
elmo | 08.31.06 - 3:28 pm | #

My point is not "Everything here is de fide for Catholics".

My point is that when a bishop speaks from his office, our habit of mind is to *docile*, not to say "This guy is stupid and full of shit and who cares what he thinks" (which is the automatic reaction of American Catholics on both ends of the political spectrum whenever a bishop says something not to their liking). The job of the Church is not to confirm us in our opinions. It is to teach. And since we are sinners, that means that it will sometimes teach things we hate. Every word spoken by a bishop is not infallible and binding. But neither are we to operate on the basis that the Church can be safely ignored and even despised every time it speaks, just so long as it does not bind us with an ex cathedra pronouncement.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 3:32 pm | #

When I read this statement earlier today, I wondered "Who are they talking about?". I still don't know.

I don't take issue with what the statement says, but rather wish it had more to say. For example, the statement does strike me as a little one-sided: it refers to Palestinians and Israelis who are "suffering as victims of occupation and militarism". I take it that is a reference to Israeli policies, since the Israelis are the only ones with a military and who are occupying anyone.

What about Palestinians and Israelis who are suffering as victims of terrorism (and certainly both ARE suffering as a result of terrorism)? If "militarism" encompasses terrorism, then I stand corrected. But I would have liked to have seen the word "terrorism" included in this statement.

Also, does Israel have a right to exist, if it so chooses, as a Jewish state? Or are Jews once again consigned to becoming a vulnerable minority in a nation that was founded to avoid that very scenario?
Jay Anderson | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 4:32 pm | #

Also, does Israel have a right to exist, if it so chooses, as a Jewish state/

Yes. But this is a natural law question, not a question of revelation. Peoples have a right to a home.

The conundrum that Israel has set itself is the attempt to be secular, Jewish, and democratic all at once.

Can't work. Because their secularity makes them have the highest abortion rate in the Mideast. With a growing Muslim population in their borders, they will have to choose whether they want to be democratic or Jewish. They won't be able to be both forever.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Hey, Mark, I've heard that before about the high abortion rate in Israel. Where would I go to find statistics on that?

thanks,
s
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 6:00 pm | #

Try Google.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 7:28 pm | #

I tried google, but didn't find much. Best I could find was this link from Guttmacher, which has info for Israel and Turkey:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/j...ls/ 25s3099.html

Israel's abortion rate is lower than Turkey's.
Josiah | 09.01.06 - 9:11 am | #