tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-387541182024-03-12T21:28:17.310-07:00Fringe WatchFringe Watcherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14656031039059513639noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-39769187304892647522014-01-03T20:51:00.002-08:002014-01-03T20:51:27.505-08:00"quenelle"<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/world/europe/concern-over-quenelle-gesture-grows-in-france.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=WO_COQ_20140103&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000" target=_blank>Concern Over an Increasingly Seen Gesture Grows in France</a>, by Scott Sayare. <i>New York Times</i> 01/02/14. "PARIS — No one seems to know just what is meant by the “quenelle,” the vaguely menacing hand gesture invented and popularized by a French comedian widely criticized as anti-Semitic, but it is clearly nothing very nice, and it appears to be spreading."
<li><a href="http://k00ls.overblog.com/2013/12/pour-ceux-qui-pr%C3%A9tendent-que-la-quenelle-n-est-pas-un-geste-antis%C3%A9mite.html" target=_blank>For those who claim that the dumpling is not an anti-Semitic gesture...</a> there is an abundance of photographs on the web of people deliberately displaying it in front of Jewish synagogues, Holocaust memorials, and even the Nazi deathcamps themselves.
</ul>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-55635382564361330572013-12-27T23:32:00.002-08:002013-12-27T23:32:12.466-08:00Crisis of Conscience: An Anti-Semite Learns He's a Jew<center><iframe width="400" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/r0vlx3f0W20" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-7232849206834063192011-01-26T21:51:00.000-08:002011-01-26T21:52:46.257-08:00Christopher Pryor at the JSA Annual Conference on Anti-SemitismThe <a href="http://www.jsantisemitism.org/conference.html" target=_blank>First Annual Conference on Muslim Antisemitism</a> was held on October 3rd, 2010. <br /><p>Christopher J. Pryor -- a familiar name on, and ally to, <i>Fringewatch</i>, participated in a panel discussion on "Theological Antisemitism".<br /><p><iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="400" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9MLUpA_hqLc" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-7384765177552962602011-01-26T21:29:00.000-08:002011-01-28T04:11:54.867-08:00A Dialogue with a TrollThere's nothing like a blog-post about Israel to bring the loons out of the woodwork. So when Dr. Philip Blosser (aka. <i>Pertinacious Papist</i>) circulated <a href="http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-brilliant-dismal-education-results.html" target=_blank>a video demonstrating UCLA college student's appalling ignorance about Israel</a>, it came as no surprise that his comments box would be infested by a troll.<br /><p>That said, insofar as the consecutive stream of comments compile a number of issues, rumors and/or allegations in a single place, I've decided to use this as an opportunity to address them.<br /><p><b>Jesus in the Talmud</b><br /><p><blockquote>"Which religion reveres Jesus as a prophet and honors His Virgin Mother? Which religion condemns Jesus as a conman, now spending eternity boiling in excrement, while claiming his mother got pregant [sic] by a Roman soldier?" Or, as another alternative, he could have asked, "Which religion honors Jesus as Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary, the sister of Moses), and slays his followers as infidels."</blockquote>The short answer is, "The Talmud." But then, what exactly does the Talmud say about Jesus? -- The Talmud is a vast collection of rabbinic discussions about, well, practically everything: Jewish law, ethics, customs and history. It has been the subject of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Middle_ages">much disputation, criticism and censorship in Jewish-Christian relations</a>, particularly in Medieval times. <br /><p>Anti-semites have referred to Jesus' alleged portrayal in the Talmud in their invectives against the Jewish people (and/or Judaism). They commonly refer to the work <i>The Talmud Unmasked; The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians</i> by Justinas Pranaitis (1861-1917), a Lithuanian Catholic priest and Professor of the Hebrew Language from Saint Petersburg, Russia. Pranaitis was called as an expert witness in the famed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_Mendel_Beilis">the blood libel case of Menahem Mendel Beilis in 1912</a> -- he was, however, publicly humiliated when the defence demonstrated his ignorance of some simple Talmudic concepts and definitions. <br /><p>Extremists like David Duke and Michael Hoffman have made frequent use of the Talmud to denigrate Judaism as a perverted or immoral religion. In response, the Anti-Defamation League chargs that such attacks are the fruit of <a href="http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/4232_12.asp" target=_blank>erroneous translations or selective quotations in order to distort the meaning of the Talmud's text, and that "fabrication of passages is not unknown."</a> See the ADL's report, <a href="http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf">The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics</a> (2003). <br /><p>A recent serious (non-crackpot) academic treatment of the subject is Peter Schäfer's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691129266?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691129266"><i>Jesus in the Talmud</i></a> (Princeton UP, 2007), which claims that, far from being unreliable distortions of the historical Jesus, the Talmud's stories "represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic that parodies the New Testament narratives" in a deliberate campaign to assert Judaism's superiority over Christianity. <img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=0691129266" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> Some have criticized Schäfer's scholarship -- Joshua Kulp finds that "in cooking up 'a well designed [rabbinical] attack,' Schafer exaggerates the evidence" and that his "interpretations of rabbic texts are simply incorrect." (<i>Shofar: Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies</i> Vol. 27, No. 2. 2009). If one does accept Shafer's concusions, we can conclude<blockquote>Rabbinic Judaism and orthodox Christianity did not evolve in igonorance of each other. From the beginning, these two nascent orthodoxies, more sisters than mother and daughter, vied for influence and narrative sovereignty. Anxiously defining themselves, they listened to one another, echoed each other, and fashioned themselves against each other. ["Talmudic Jesus" Benjamin Balint. <i>First Things</i> Jun/Jul2007, Issue 174, p41-44].</blockquote>Contra Schafer, one should also explore Gil Student's <a href="http://talmud.faithweb.com/">"The Real Truth About the Talmud"</a>, an exhaustive exploration of the various charges against the Talmud -- in particular the following sections:<ul><li><a href="http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html" target=_blank>The Jesus Narrative in the Talmud</a> - What, if anything, does the Talmud say about Jesus? <br /><li><a href="http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html" target=_blank>The Jesus Narrative in the Talmud</a> - Does the Talmud's narrative of events correspond or differ from the Gospels'? </ul>It is not the intent of the troll in Dr. Blosser's comments box to engage in a serious academic discussion of this topic. Rather, he wishes to dredge up from 2,000 years of history some (alleged) remarks made by Jewish teachers about Jesus and Judaism, in order to denigrate the Jewish people and foment further discord between Jews and Christians -- a deplorable tactic, and attitude in itself.<br /><p>The troll would be further disappointed to learn that Jesus' alleged portrayal in the Talmud represents the sum-total of Jewish teaching about Jesus. Excluding such groups as the <a href="">"Jews for Jesus"</a> and other Jewish converts to Christianity, one might say that Jews don't have a single, formal and authoritative teaching about Jesus, save that most of them are in fundamental disagreement with the claims made by the Church as to his divinity. <br /><p>In the twentieth century, there have been various, and fascinating, attempts by some Jews to wrestle with Christianity and its claims. See David Hagner's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579100317?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1579100317"><i>The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus</i></a> (Wipf & Stock, 1997)<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=1579100317" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /><br />; Matthew Hoffman's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804753717?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0804753717"><i>From Rebel to Rabbi: Reclaiming Jesus and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture</i></a> (Stanford UP, 2007)<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=0804753717" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />; the scholarship of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fs%3Fie%3DUTF8%26x%3D0%26ref_%3Dnb_sb_noss%26y%3D0%26field-keywords%3Djacob%2520neusner%26url%3Dsearch-alias%253Dstripbooks&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=390957" target=_blank>Geza Vermes</a><img src="https://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> or Jacob Neusner's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0773520465?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0773520465"><i>A Rabbi Talks With Jesus</i></a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=0773520465" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> -- a remarkable book made popular by Pope Benedict XVI's detailed exploration of it in the first volume of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586171984?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586171984"><i>Jesus of Nazareth</i></a>).<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=1586171984" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /><p><center>* * *</center><br><br><b>Muslims or Jews - which are more hospitable to Christians?</b><br><br><blockquote>For a religion that slays Christ's followers as infidels, those followers certainly seemed to have been treated far better under under the yoke of dhimmitude pre-1948. How else to explain all those ancient Christian communities in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Iraq?</blockquote><br />If the author is willing, perhaps this might be an opportune time to suggest the works of Bat Ye'Or, including: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0838636888?ie=UTF8&tag=christopsweb&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0838636888" target=_blank>The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century</a>. <img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=christopsweb&l=as2&o=1&a=0838636888" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> Likewise, you can read a number of her lectures on the <a href="http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.html">myth of a 'tolerant pluralistic Islamic society'</a> on her website, dhimmitude.org.<br /><blockquote>It makes you wonder why so many purported followers of Christ betray such slavish devotion to that sh*tty little country halfway around the world. By the way, whatever became of that 40 percent of the Holy Land that counted itself Christian? Did Christian (sic) Zionists have anything to do with their displacement?</blockquote>It is possible -- or rather, true -- that Israel was complicit in the displacement of the Palestinian population following the establishment of Israel in 1948, and that a portion of the refugee population were Christians. But does this really come as a surprise, considering that Christians in the Middle East <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians_and_Arabic-speaking_Christians#Palestinian_Territories" target=_blank>tend to identify themselves as Arabs</a>. Displacement of populations and the creation of refugees is a sad but all-too-common consequence of any war. <br /><p>That being said, I don't think you can render blame squarely on Israel without acknowledging the role of the Arab states seeking Israel's destruction. One cannot grapple with Israel's complicity in Palestinian-Arab suffering and the creation of the Palestianian refugee problem without likewise acknowledging the Arab states' <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_lands" target=_blank>complicity in the Jewish exodus (and/or expulsion) from Arab lands</a>. Consider that <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#a">the number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine</a>.<br /><p>The causes of the Christian exodus from the Holy Land is hotly debated. Blame is by and large attributed to Israel and the socio-economic conditions within Palestine as a result of its policies. At the same time, you could certainly find a role played by Islamic extremism (see Jonathan Adelman and Agota Kuperman's examination of <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/christianme.html" target_blank>the Christian Exodus from the Middle East</a>). Likewise, in pointing to the establishment of roadside checkpoints and the infamous <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/24_fence.html" target=_blank>"security fence"</a> (or wall, in some areas) as a source of hardship for the Palestinian Christian community, one is obliged to recognize <a href="http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=1284989" target=_blank>that it was born by practical necessity</a>.<br /><p><blockquote>It may well be that Americans and Christians will invariably find themselves in the crosshairs of the vile Mohammedans. But America's one-sided support for the Zionist state has done nothing but create and incite extremists in their camp.</blockquote>As far as "one-sided support [of Israel]" is concerned, <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/USpolicy.html#r8">I'll refer you to this analysis of the topic</a>. <p><center>* * *</center><p><b>What does it mean that Christians "had it better" under Saddam Hussein?</b><blockquote>How many Christians lived in Iraq before the U.S. launched its invasion and occupation of that poor country? How many live there now? Gee, you think there's a connection?</blockquote>Prior to the Gulf War in 1991, the Christian population of Iraq numbered approximately 1 million. The Baathist regime kept a lid on anti-Christian violence and subjected some to "relocation programmes". Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Christian population fell to an estimated 800,000. (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11669994" target=_blank>Iraqi Christians' long history"</a> BBC News, November 01/10).<br /><p>Some Iraqi Christians rose to the top of Hussein's regime -- notable among them Deputy Prime Minister <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Aziz" target=_blank>Tariq Aziz</a>, who, in his own words, <a href="http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2007/3/judgement338.htm" target=_blank>"had the honour to work with the former regime and with the hero Saddam Hussein,"</a> (2007) -- howebeit in a more recent interview <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/05/iraq-us-tariq-aziz-iran">portrays himself as a Arab natonalist occupying a "political position" whose "moral duty" was to defend the decisions of Hussein</a>:<blockquote>"I don't say that I am a great man and that I was correct in everything that I did. But I am proud of my life because my best intention was to serve Iraq. There were mistakes though, there were things that were not completely correct."</blockquote>"Paradoxically, Christians were more protected under [Hussein's] dictatorship," remarked French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (Catholic News Service 2003). That is a sentiment shared by many or most Iraqi Christians. <a href="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701152.htm" target=_blank>As one Iraqi Christian put it in 2007</a>:<blockquote>"When Saddam was in power there was no fighting. Saddam loved the Christians. We were safer with Saddam; now we just leave the country."</blockquote>One may question whether Saddam had any "affection" for Christianity, but there is no disputing that Christians under Saddam Hussein enjoyed a higher standard of safety, security and an overall standard of living than they do in present-day Iraq. Terrorist intimidation, kidnappings and outright attacks (such as the frequent bombings of churches and mosques) are directed particularly at Shiite and Christian minorities, and the Iraqi government appears powerless to protect them.<br /><p>So, Christians had it better in Iraq.<br /><p>But at what price?<br /><p>That's the question. Considering the record of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's regime against other non-Christian segments of Iraq's population: the wholesale destruction of villages, deportations and mass executions of Shiite Kurds during the 1988 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign" target=_blank>"Anfal" genocide campaign</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack">Halabja poison gas attack</a>; crackdown on Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in the North in 1991; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_Victims" target=_blank>An estimation of casualties from various sources on Wikipedia runs as follows</a>:<blockquote>According to <i>The New York Times</i>, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war. Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000 to over 600,000, estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000 to 200,000. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.</blockquote>Indeed, whatever stability and security Iraqis enjoyed under Hussein's dictatorship was obtained by way of secret police, the torture (even of women and children), government-sponsored rape, murder, deportation, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons and genocide. (For documentation see: <a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf1/fco_hrdossieriraq" target=_blank>SADDAM HUSSEIN: crimes and human rights abuses</a> Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London. November 2002). <br /><p>And this is precisely why I am unable, while acknowledging that the Christian population in Iraq probably did enjoy a relatively higher and secure standard of living under Saddam Hussein, to derive any kind of conclusion along the lines of: "Saddam Hussein should have remained in power."<p><center>* * *</center><p><blockquote>Which Mideast democracy, recipient of untold billions in U.S. military and financial assistance, banned "The Passion of the Christ"?</blockquote><br /><p>Mel Gibson's <i>Passion of the Christ</i> was never formally banned by Israel. This is not to say, however, that groups like the Anti-Defamation League didn't lobby for its banning. However, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/15/entertainment/et-king15" target=_blank>Israeli distributors did not seek permission to market the movie, according to the country's Film Censorship Board, the official arbiter of what cinematic fare is fit for public viewing</a> (<i>Los Angeles Times</i> March 15, 2004). The concern was that it would probably not do well because of the controversy. Case in point: Scorcese's <i>The Last Temptation of Christ</i> opened with a comparative level of controversy and fizzled at the box office. We may take issue with it, but Jewish movie distributors are entirely within their rights to reject a film.<br /><p><a href="http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1860.cfm" target=_blank>That said, a BBC News report does indicate that the film was shown in various venues around Israel</a>:<blockquote>An art house cinema in Tel Aviv will show the movie within three months. The film will be followed by a post-screening seminar to examine the depiction of Jesus. Pirated copies of the film have been circulating in Jerusalem. During Easter, there were nightly private showings in East Jerusalem hotels, where most of the Christian Arab population lives.</blockquote><center>* * *</center><p>At this point, the troll goes on to embark on a broader indictment of European nations (and presumably Germany in particular) for "imprisoning those who dare to question any aspect of the orthodox Holocaust account", and the United States for "meddling incessantly" in the affairs of Islamic nations, "while claiming any blowback it suffers (q.v., 9/11)stems from those nations' extremist elements." One could engage these matters further, but time is valuable and this post has gone on long enough.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-1593131398905594162010-11-21T12:47:00.000-08:002010-11-21T12:48:06.570-08:00SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson Ordered to Remove Lawyer Affiliated with Neo-Nazi Movement<a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/sspx/bishoprichardwilliamson/prweb4817424.htm" target=_blank>SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson Ordered to Remove Lawyer Affiliated with Neo-Nazi Movement, Before Germany Appeal Begins</a>:<blockquote>Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X recently hired lawyer, Wolfram Nahrath, to conduct his appeal against a €10,000 fine imposed on April, 2010, in Regensburg, Germany, (Regensburg Court) for comments he made in a 2008 Swedish television interview regarding the Holocaust.<br /><p>The Society of Saint Pius X recently learned via Germany’s Spiegel news magazine that Bishop Williamson hired Nahrath, a lawyer who is affiliated with the so-called neo-Nazi movement in Germany.<br /><p>The Society of Saint Pius X Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on Saturday, November 20, released the following worldwide statement from Menzingen, Switzerland:<br /><p>FRATERNITAS SACERDOTALIS SANCTI PII X<br /><p>GENERAL HOUSE PRESS RELEASE<br /><p>The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has learnt by the press of Bishop Richard Williamson’s decision, just ten days before his trial, to dismiss the lawyer charged with his defense, in favor of a lawyer who is openly affiliated to the so-called neo-Nazi movement in Germany, and to other such groups.<br /><p>Bishop Fellay has given Bishop Williamson a formal order to go back on this decision and to not allow himself to become an instrument of political theses that are completely foreign to his mission as a Catholic bishop serving the Society of Saint Pius X.<br /><p>Disobedience to this order would result in Bishop Williamson being expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X.<br /><p>Menzingen, November 20 of 2010.<br /><p>Fr. Christian Thouvenot, general Secretary</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-88407357205981769422010-03-04T17:38:00.001-08:002010-03-04T17:38:24.211-08:00Traditional Catholicism and the teachings of Bishop Richard WilliamsonAn article by J. Christopher Pryor has just been published in the <i>Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism</i>. Titled <a href="http://www.jsantisemitism.org/pdf/jsa_1-2.pdf" target="_blank">"Traditional Catholicism and the Teachings of Bishop Richard Williamson"</a>, it explores the anti-semitic worldview of the notorious bishop of the Society for Saint Pius X.<br /><p>Mr. Pryor begins by "highlighting key experiences [he] had while studying in Bishop Williamson’s seminary in Winona, Minnesota", in order to "illustrate his process of indoctrination, the particular methodology that ensured that his philosophy was thoroughly absorbed by the seminarians."<br /><p>Worth reading in full.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-83085908426790841932010-01-19T20:24:00.000-08:002010-01-19T20:25:24.925-08:00Bishop Williamson on SSPX-Vatican talks: "dialogue of the deaf"Via Reuters' <i>Faithworld</i>): Bishop Williamson is at it again -- this time <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/19/bishop-williamson-says-vatican-sspx-talks-dialogue-of-the-deaf/" target=_blank>dismissing the talks between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) as a "dialogue of the deaf"</a> - "Either the SSPX becomes a traitor or Rome converts."Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-10561890825768188592009-11-12T07:34:00.000-08:002009-11-12T07:36:12.550-08:00Richard Williamson in the News<ul><br /><li><a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127202.html" target=_blank>Holocaust-denying bishop appeals $16,822 fine in Germany</a> Associated Press October 11, 2009:<blockquote>[Richard Williamson], who was fined 12,000 euro $16,822 in Germany for denying the Holocaust has appealed the fine, his lawyer said Tuesday. <br /><p>Matthias Lossmann said that the bishop, Richard Williamson, objected to the fine, which means there will be a trial. </blockquote>(<a href="hhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1226673/British-bishop-Richard-Williamson-trial-Germany-Holocaust-denial.html" target=_blank>Full story in the UK's <i>Daily Mail</i></a>).<br /><p><li>Meanwhile, in his latest weekly article, <a href="http://christopherpryor.blogspot.com/2009/11/bishop-williamson-makes-renewed-attack.html" target=_blank>Williamson renews his attacks on the Jews</a> by way of criticizing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School" target=_blank>Frankfurt school</a>. (To criticize an intellectual movement is one thing; to criticize a movement <i>on account of their Jewishness</i>, as does the resource that Williamson cites, is another. <i>Note the difference</i>).<br /></ul>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-82017989393465484722009-08-25T23:55:00.000-07:002009-08-26T00:01:11.612-07:00Judge issues ruling on John Sharpe defamation caseJohn Sharpe -- the subject of prior investigations of this blog -- recently sued the newspaper (<i>The Virginia Pilot</i>) and a columnist by the name of David Mastio for defamation. <p>The ruling came on April 9, 2009. While we have yet to hear reporting of this matter in the mainstream Catholic press, we have come across a few outcries protesting the summary judgement on various anti-semitic blog sites. <p>The article by David Mastio, to which Sharpe took offense, can be found here: <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/node/236811" target=_blank>"Rank is wrong for Navy supremacist"</a> <i>The Virginia Pilot</i> March 15, 2007. Vivian Page (<i>All Politics is Local</i>) <a href="http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2009/04/28/judgment-in-defamation-case-against-pilot/" target=_blank>relays the background</a>:<blockquote>Back in 2007, the Pilot printed an article about Lt. Cmdr. John Sharpe, who was relieved of his duty as the public affairs officer on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson. Sharpe was being investigated for heading two anti-Semitic groups, the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press. The Southern Poverty Law Center identified these groups as “two of the most nakedly anti-Semitic organizations in the entire radical traditionalist Catholic pantheon.” (This article was the result of an earlier article printed in Portfolio Weekly which is no longer available online.)<br /><p>The article prompted this editorial, written by then editorial writer David Mastio. In it, Mastio takes the Navy to task for not having noticed that Sharpe’s writings had been available on the internet for five years. In the process, Mastio – as only Mastio can – uses some inflammatory language to describe Sharpe, like the following: "His views veer from insanely pacifist conspiracy theories to chest-thumping jingoism with barely a speed bump in between."</blockquote>What follows are excerpts from Judge Norman A. Thomas' summary judgement in the matter of <a href="http://www.valawyersweekly.com/pdf/009-8-082.pdf" target=_blank>John Sharpe v. Landmark Communications, Inc., d/b/a The Virginian-Pilot and David Mastio</a> [PDF format]. <blockquote><br />With respect to the particular public controversy inquiry, the Court finds that Sharpe, writing from the perspective of an advocate of his personal interpretations of the very conservative Catholic Social Doctrine, frequently writes or compiles, re-publishes, or endorses the writings of others that criticize the alleged role of Jews and their perceived conspiratorial efforts to dominate the United States Government, world financial markets, the media, and world events, including but not limited to, the September 11, 2001 attacks by Islamic extremists in the United States and the resultant United States’ and other western nations’ involvement in armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. While relatively broad in their scope, Sharpe’s writings and those which he otherwise published or endorsed on the websites of the Legion of St. Louis or the IHS Press (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Sharpe’s writings” or “his writings”) coalesce around one common denominator, that is, suspicion and criticism of the role of Jews in world events, including the perceived cause and effect of such Jewish efforts on the downfall on western Christendom and, in particular, Catholicism. Sharpe’s writings take a macro view of perceived Jewish influence, variously referring to it in such ways as “Judeo-Masonry”, the “Jewish Nation”, “World Judaism”, “World Jewry”, and “depending upon who is asked, what makes someone Jewish, is anything from their religious persuasion to their ethnicity, to their nationality, to the religion or ethnicity of their maternal parent.” Special Feature: WTC and the Pentagon Attacked. Part III, a writing authored by Sharpe and published circa October 16, 2001, on the website of the Legion of St. Louis. [...]<br /><p>In paragraph three of the March 15, 2007 editorial the defendants state that, “Sharpe’s views aren’t dangerous because they are openly racist and anti-Semitic, though that would be bad enough. His ideas are dangerous because they’re crazy, and when uttered by a commissioned officer, they take on the aura of authority”. Although one might argue that the defendants uttered only opinion in stating that Sharpe’s views are “openly racist and anti-Semitic”, Sharpe claims that the defendants therein make factual assertions and defamed him by doing so. Complaint, paragraphs 6 and 20. <p>Viewed as allegedly defamatory factual statements respecting Sharpe’s views, the Court grants the defendants summary judgment. The Court, having thoroughly reviewed the corpus of Sharpe’s writings, and especially those selections personally authored by him, concludes as a matter of law that the writings do espouse anti-Semitic and racist views. <p>[...]<br /><p>Sharpe’s views, as expressed in his personally authored writings, align almost perfectly with both the traditional and more modern expanded definitions of the term “anti-Semitism”. Indeed, on one occasion, Sharpe admitted, in effect, that a hypothetical enlisted member of his command might well have considered his writings to be anti-Semitism. <p>[...]<br /><p>No reasonable person can read Sharpe’s individual writings and conclude that he espouses anything other than a deep, abiding and pervasive suspicion of and hostility toward Jews, whether considered as a collective people, religion, nation or ethnic group. From his perspective as an advocate of the Catholic Social Doctrine, he considers Jews to be in direct competition with western Christendom, in fact, seeking to bring about its end, and also responsible in whole or in part for nefarious and self-centered domination of the United States Government, one or more of its former Presidents, the media, the world financial markets, and, bearing responsibility for such events as the terrorist attacks on<br />United States soil occurring on September 11, 2001.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-91298244883838900172009-07-17T20:46:00.000-07:002009-07-17T20:49:08.425-07:00Robert Sungenis is at it again.<a href="http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/07/lies-plagiarism-and-anti-semites.html" target=_blank>"Lies, Plagiarism, and Anti-Semites: Sungenis Comes Full Circle"</a>, by David Palm. July 14, 2009:<blockquote>Despite an explicit directive from his ordinary, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, to cease writing about Jews and Jewish issues (see here) and despite his own numerous promises to stop doing so (his promises are documented here), Sungenis has repeatedly returned to the topic, each time with the same blatant disregard for truth, Catholic morals, and scholarly standards. As a direct result of Sungenis’ embarrassing and vile extremism, he has now had presentations halted by Archbishop Raymond Burke (St. Louis) and the Diocese of San Bernardino (in concert with the Knights of Columbus).<br /><p>Well, the dog has once again returned to his vomit. His latest salvo, however, is of particular interest because of what agitated Bob this time - a document that was promulgated by the USCCB precisely to <i>correct</i> the problematic positions taken by the <i>Reflections on Covenant and Mission</i> document in regard to the dual covenant theory and the evangelization of Jews.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-11291871618908357512009-07-13T19:34:00.000-07:002009-07-13T19:35:23.390-07:00<a href="http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63650" target=_blank>Watchdog group: Dozens of active-duty troops found on neo-Nazi site</a>, by Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes. July 10, 2009.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-55353863744279114102009-06-10T00:12:00.000-07:002009-06-10T00:16:06.862-07:00<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bfwdNAT8sWU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bfwdNAT8sWU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><p><a href="http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/05/bnps-soft-sell-masks-the-poison.html" target=_blank>BNP's soft sell masks the poison</a>, by Peter Hitchens. May 30, 2009.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-58765052576648617722009-03-13T21:03:00.001-07:002009-08-23T21:33:24.501-07:00Pope Benedict XVI on the Williamson controversy<blockquote>An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. <i>A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support</i>. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.</blockquote>Excerpt from <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html" target=_blank>Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre </a> (March 10, 2009).Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-65137788532687753172009-02-27T19:55:00.000-08:002009-02-27T19:57:02.520-08:00Williamson apologizes; Vatican: "not enough"<a href="http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25208" target=_blank>Bishop Richard Williamson released a public statement apologizing for his remarks on the Holocaust</a>:<blockquote>The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.<br /></p><p>Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.<br /></p><p><br />On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (..."I believe"..."I believe"...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since.<br /></p><p><br />However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.<br /></p><p><br />As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.<br /></p><p><br />+Richard Williamson,<br><br />London, 26 February, 2009</blockquote><br /><p><center>* * *</center><br /><a href="http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25217" target=_blank>Federico Lombardi says an apology from Bishop Richard Williamson is not enough</a>:<blockquote>Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said in a verbal statement today that the apology is lacking. He told journalists that the statement "does not seem to respect the conditions established in the Feb. 4 note from the [Vatican] Secretariat of State, which stated that [Bishop Williamson] must distance himself in an absolute, unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah."<br /><p>The spokesman also noted that the prelate's declaration was not a letter directed to the Holy Father or to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which oversees the Church's efforts to heal the schism with the Society of St. Pius X.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-57909838076069701292009-02-20T20:56:00.000-08:002009-02-20T20:58:36.960-08:00Williamson's anti-semitism no secret to former SSPX seminarians<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/20/bishops_vexing_beliefs_have_deep_roots/" target=_blank>Former seminarians under Bishop Williamson say his anti-semitism was no secret</a>:<blockquote>"He got his point across, right from the start," said the Rev. John Rizzo, who in 1985 was ordained a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, which broke with Rome over the liturgical and theological reforms instituted during the Second Vatican Council of the mid-1960s. John Rizzo left the Society of St. Pius X in 1993 and joined a different traditionalist society, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which is in union with Rome.<br /><p>"I have a sizable nose, and he would say to me, 'Rizzo, are you baptized, or are you a Jew?' " John Rizzo, who is now based in New Zealand, said in a phone interview from Australia. "There was another seminarian named Oppenheimer, and he would say: 'Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.' "<br /><p>[...]<br /><p>John Rizzo's twin brother, Joseph, who left the seminary without being ordained, also recalls Williamson's rhetoric. Joseph Rizzo is now back in Weymouth, where he has four children and is a general manager for Tedeschi Food Shops.<br /><p>"He called the Holocaust the biggest theatrics known to mankind - I remember sitting in a conference one time when he said those words, and I couldn't believe it - he looked around the room and saw the jaws dropping," said Joseph Rizzo. "I walked around the lake with him, and I said, 'Why would you say that?' and he said, 'There's no documentation.' He said it was all staged, and when I asked why, he said because the Jews own the country, they own the banks, and he felt it was some kind of effort to generate some sympathy toward them."</blockquote>Charming. <br /><p>On a related note, however, <i>The Times</i> reports that <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5769649.ece" target=_blank>Williamson has been give ten days to leave the country or face expulsion</a>:<blockquote>The Argentine Interior Ministry said Bishop Williamson’s statements on the Holocaust “profoundly insult Argentine society, the Jewish community and all of humanity by denying an historic truth”.<p>Bishop Williamson had been head of La Reja seminary in Buenos Aires since 2003 but he was removed from that job last week.<br /><p>The Argentine interior ministry said that Bishop Williamson had not declared “his true activity” as the director of the seminary on immigration forms, and had “concealed the true motive for his stay in the country” by claiming to be an employee of a non-governmental body.<br /><p>The government said it had been unaware of Bishop Williamson’s position until recent publicity, but added that his views were a factor in the decision to expel him.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-19623386473690783492009-02-02T19:57:00.000-08:002009-02-02T20:04:17.021-08:00Bishop Williamson delivers pseudo-apology; Bishop Fellay: "The Jews are 'our elder brothers'"; "Antisemitism has no place in our ranks"<a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/apology-letter-of-bishop-richard.html" target=_blank>Letter of apology to Pope Benedict XVI from Bishop Bernard Williamson</a>:<blockquote>Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.<br /><p>For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:<br /><p>"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."<br /><p>Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.</blockquote>Unfortunately, this strikes me more as an apology for making his remarks at an innopportune moment in time, rather than a remorseful <i>retraction</i> of the content itself.<br /><p>That said, it also sounds like Williamson's superior is sincere in his convictions:<br /><ul><br /><li><a href="http://cathcon.blogspot.com/2009/02/sspx-to-discipline-bishop-williamson.html" target=_blank>SSPX To Discipline Bishop Williamson</a> <i>Mittelbayerische Zeitung</i> February 2, 2009. (Translated by ,<i>Catholic Church Conservation</i>).<br /><li><a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html" target=_blank>Fellay: "The Jews are 'our elder brothers'"; "Antisemitism has no place in our ranks"</a> <i>Rorate-Caeli</i> - first declaration made yesterday to French Catholic Weekly <i>Famille Chrétienne</i>; second by email to Dr Alcuin Reid. February 2, 2009.<br /></ul>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-87771136833673885522009-01-27T21:28:00.000-08:002009-01-27T21:54:21.315-08:00Superior General of the SSPX: "Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak on political or historical matters"<ul><br /><li><a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/superior-general-of-sspx-bishop.html" target=_blank>Superior General of the SSPX: Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak on political or historical matters</a> January 27, 2009:<blockquote>Communiqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay <br /><p>It has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters. <br /><p>The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this. <br /><p>We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.<br /><p>It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.<br /><p>The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.<br /><p>Menzingen, January 27, 2009 <br /><p>+ Bishop Bernard Fellay<br>Superior General</blockquote><br /><li><a href="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/note-of-district-superior-for-germany.html" target=_blank>Note of the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX</a>:<blockquote>As District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany, I am very troubled by the words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country. <br /><p>The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.<br /><p>The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.<br /><p>I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.<br /><p>Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler's concentration camps.<br /><p>Stuttgart, January 27, 2009<br /><p>Father Franz Schmidberger</blockquote></ul><br />Thank you.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-61589129647767461792009-01-24T13:56:00.000-08:002009-01-29T21:32:06.758-08:00Vatican lifts excommunications on SSPX hierarchy; Bishop Williamson - an obstacle to reconciliationFrom Vatican Radio comes the news that <a href="http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/01/excommunications-of-sspx-bishops-lifted.html" target=_blank>Holy See today has lifted the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX by a decree of the Congregation for Bishops</a>.<br /><p><a href="http://amywelborn.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/your-move-2/" target=_blank>Amy Welborn offers a good assessment of the situation and a roundup of responses to the Vatican's move</a> -- among them the helpful post from the clerical blog <i>Rationabile Obsequium</i> (<a href="http://rationabileobsequium.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-precisely-has-pope-done.html" target=_blank>What precisely has the Pope done?</a>) and <a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/stribe/3546702718202758022/#255643" target=_blank>this analysis from Carlos Palad of <i>Rorate Caeli</i></a>; a good aid in discerning what this means (<i>an invitation to</i> reconciliation with the Catholic Church); and more importantly what it does not ("The lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops does <i>not</i> signify that the SSPX is back in full communion with the Holy See"). <br /><p>The ball is now in the SSPX's court.<br /><p><center>* * *</center><p><br /><p>Earlier this month, SSPX Bishop Williamson gave an interview to the Swedish press, in which he espoused his oft-repeated view that <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/22/pope_to_lift_sspx_excommunications_just_as_bishop_williamson_denies_nazi_gas_chambers">none of [the Jews] died as a result of gas in gas chambers."</a><br /><p>Williamson has previously endorsed the anti-semitic forgery <i>Protocols of the Elders of Zion</i> ("God put into men's hands the Protocols of the Sages of Sion... if men want to know the truth, but few do") and has asserted that the Jews are fighting for world domination "to prepare the Anti-Christ's throne in Jerusalem." <br /><p>In the past, he has also indulged in <a href="http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/11/society-of-st-p.html" target=_blank>9/11 conspiracy theorizing</a> and denounced Vatican II as "the religion of man, of man put in the place of God ... it's a new religion, dressed up to look like the Catholic religion, but it's not." (See <a href="http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000226.shtml" target=_blank></a> <i>Catholic Herald</i> March 5, 2008) and <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/politics-of-bishop-richard-williamson.html" target=_blank>"The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson"</a> (<i>Fringewatch</i> January 25, 2006).<br /><p>I fear that the Pope's gesture will not go over well with the Jewish people or those sympathetic to the betterment of Christian-Jewish relations. Some will see the lifting of excommunication without a concurrent demand for a change of mind and heart on the part of avowed anti-semites like Williamson as a tacit acceptance. <br /><p>Writing to Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission on Religious Relations With the Jews, <a href="http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5450_96.htm" target=_blank>Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation league expressed his concern that lifting Bishop Williamson's excommunication "could become a source of great tension between Catholics and Jews."</a>:<blockquote>"The re-admittance to full communion of a bishop who appears to publicly reject key teachings of the Second Vatican Council could provide succor to those whose views threaten the Jewish people and the Church's desire to improve and deepen its relationship with us to benefit all mankind."</blockquote><br /><p>From my understanding Williamson's views have scandalized some within the SSPX; however, Bishop Fellay has taken a 'hands off' approach in his handling of the controversy. In a stern reply to the Swedish television studio, he castigated them for their "vile attempts" to question Williamson's views on the Holocaust, stating:<blockquote>It is obvious that a bishop can only speak about questions of faith and morals with any ecclesial authority. If he deals with secular issues he is personally responsible for his own private opinions. The Society I am governing has no authority to address such issues, or will it ever claim such authority.</blockquote>No doubt that if the SSPX has any desire to reconcile with Rome, particularly after Pope Benedict's significant gesture in their direction, they will have to confront the obstacle of Bishop Richard Williamson.Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-49994250126323797102008-09-20T23:48:00.000-07:002008-09-20T23:50:06.350-07:00"Abortion and the Catholic Right II" - Dr. James Hitchcock and criticsEarlier this year, I drew attention to an article by Catholic historian James Hitchcock: <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200704/ai_n19511243/print" target=_blank>"Abortion and the Catholic Right"</a> (<i>Human Life Review</i> Spring 2007), which observed how the Catholic (re: "traditionalist") Right -- as represented by Joseph Sobran, Paul Likoudis and contributors to The <i>Wanderer</i> & The Remnant -- have been obsessed with their opposition to democratic-capitalism, "neoconservatives" and the Bush administration, to such an immense degree that they now hold the aformentioned issues as being "more pressing" than abortion. <br /><p>In the Winter 2008 issue, <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200801/ai_n27899656/print?tag=artBody;col1" target=_blank>James Hitchcock responds to his critics</a> -- among them Christopher Ferrara of <i>The Wanderer</i> and John Rao of <i>The Remnant</i>. As he observes, "the most common response to my article was simply to change the subject-from abortion to the war in Iraq, the economy, or whatever else seemed important to a particular individual, without apparently realizing that changing the subject exactly proved my point."<br /><p>Hitchcock's dealings with the "fringe right" and their attitudes toward the Republicans (and/or "neocons") are reminiscent of some recent skirmishes with a few Catholic blogs on the "progressive left" -- <i>politics makes for strange bedfellows</i>. Consider:<blockquote>In their repeated denunciations of "neo-conservatives" over the Iraq war, right-wing Catholics ignore the fact that neo-conservatives, especially in the pages of their leading publication, The Weekly Standard, are among the few secular commentators enrolled in the pro-life cause (for example, a strong article [November 5, 2007]-not by any means the first-on the Terri Schiavo case). Christopher Manion, a regular <i>Wanderer</i> columnist, regularly charges (e.g., November 15, 2007) that neo-conservatives' attitude to pro-lifers "seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt," an assertion for which he offers no evidence. Only a week before Manion made this claim, The <i>Wanderer</i> itself provided evidence of strong neo-conservative support of pro-life causes without acknowledging it, when it cited a <i>Standard</i> article that was one of the most thorough and effective exposés of Planned Parenthood ever published.<br /><p>Manion's "proof that neoconservatives are not pro-life consists entirely of raw assertion, on the assumption that <i>Wanderer</i> readers know nothing about the movement except what he tells them. For example, the ecumenical religious journal First Things has over the years published innumerable articles on the life issues, but Manion (January 31) falsely claimed that in its pages '"national greatness' conservatism . . . crowds out the pro-lifers."<br /><p>[...]<br /><p>Until he did so poorly in the primaries, it was right-wing dogma that neoconservatives were planning to impose Giuliani on the nation, an assumption that was used to justify blanket condemnations of the Republicans. In reality, however, neo-conservatives were predictably divided over the various Republican candidates, and one article in the Standard (October 2, 2007) argued that Giuliani was unacceptable precisely because of his position on abortion, a judgment also tendered by National Review (December, 3, 2007), a magazine that right-wingers dismiss as having been captured by neoconservatives. (Manion [December 13, 2007] distorted the <i>Standard</i>'s argument against Giuliani by calling it a "lament.")<br /><p>The assumption by right-wing critics of the Republican Party (and many on the Left as well) that the party's official pro-life stance is hypocritical is a dogma that, like all dogmas, is irrefutable, in that Republican inaction on abortion proves the charge, while any action is dismissed as a political trick. </blockquote>And so on and so forth. It comes as no suprise that Hitchcock is lumped together with Fr. Neuhaus and George Weigel, renegade Catholics who wish to replace the saints of the liturgical calendar with "John Locke, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ludwig von Mises, and maybe Mickey Mouse."<br /><p>Hitchcock concludes:<blockquote>Those who reject electoral politics as a way of combating abortion offer no concrete alternative. Disdaining the work of painstaking, step-by-step political activity, they leave the field to their enemies and direct much of their fire at those ostensible allies who consider the battle still worth fighting.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-75971957363731198362008-07-23T22:05:00.000-07:002008-07-28T22:21:50.312-07:00Does the SSPX formally endorse John Sharpe?<a href="http://thechambersinitiative.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Sharpe" target=_blank>Michael Semin appears to lament that only the SSPX, The Angelus, and other Traditional Catholics, back John Sharpe's work Neo-Conned. <i>The Chambers Initiative</i>, however, begs to differ</a>:<blockquote>My guess is that Semin will be hard pressed to obtain an official approval from any religious organization, Traditional or otherwise, that officially backs John Sharpe and/or Neo-Conned. If Semin does obtain any, we will gladly post any official endorsement from a Catholic General Superior stating such approval. If there are not any, it is time that Semin and his friends stop acting as if they are running a Church approved movement.</blockquote>Christopher Blosserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08385159494196923575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-52063475412237899142008-07-17T06:42:00.000-07:002008-07-19T07:25:04.495-07:00Out of Touch? The Scandal of Leon Podles<p>In this post we take a break from the political periphery to look at some religious fringe behavior. At the beginning of this year <i>Touchstone</i> magazine came out heavily endorsing Leon Podles' new book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0979027993/sr=8-1/qid=1216302832/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1216302832&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Sacrilege</a> </i>(Crossland Foundation), which claims to expose, in excruciating detail, the Catholic clerical sex scandals. </p><p>Plenty of reliable and faithful Catholic writers have grappled with this problem. But Podles goes even further and indulges in unsubstantiated reports which undermine his credibility. This even prompted <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6114" target="_blank">Fr. John Neuhaus</a> at <i>First Things</i>, in his January 2008 commentary,<i> </i>to say:</p><blockquote><p>It is a rambling essay of more than five hundred pages on a potpourri of items picked up from the public media and the blogosphere, including, along with the kitchen sink, stomach-turning details of abuse, mainly with boys, and a scathing, if familiar, indictment from a conservative perspective of liberal depredations that brought things to this sorry pass. Regrettably, the tone is shrill, and even righteous anger does not justify the author’s suspension of caution and charity in attributing motives.</p></blockquote><p>Given <em>Touchstone</em>'s otherwise outstanding reputation, it is troubling that the magazine insisted on running a full-page back-cover ad for <i>Sacrilege </i>(with a close-up photo of a man in a clerical color), month after month. No doubt it helps that Podles is a senior editor for the magazine. That may also explain why people who have contacted editors about the ad have simply been ignored. The only response that we could find was a ribald bit of doggerel by <a href="http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2008/01/neuhaus-on-podl.html" target="_blank">S. M. Hutchens</a> (<i>another</i> senior editor) on the <i>Touchstone </i>blog which lampoons Fr. Neuhaus. It's not much of a response to legitimate criticism.</p><p>If Podles' book were just an obvious left-wing anti-clerical rant, we would ignore it. What concerns us is that—like other scandal-mongers and fringe commentators we've covered—he tries to pass himself off as a "Catholic in good standing." Yet a little digging reveals some interesting things. Both the book and the <i>Touchstone</i> ad carry a prominent endorsement by Thomas Doyle, author of conspiracy-obsessed work <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Priests-Secret-Codes-Catholic/dp/1566252652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216304050&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse</a></i>. Doyle is a professional Church-basher who argues that Catholicism has suffered from sex abuse from the very beginning, due in large part to its traditional teachings on marriage and clerical celibacy. </p><p>The problem with Podles is that he is a theological freelancer who buys into the view that sex abuse is endemic and institutionalized. How is this attitude any different from the heterodox opinions of Doyle? Though he tries to disarm critics by saying that "attacking sexual abuse is not attacking the Catholic Church" (true enough), the tenor of his argument contradicts this stance. For example in the preface to his book, Podles makes the following assertions:</p><blockquote><p>The toleration of abuse was not necessary. It was and is convenient. A canonized saint tolerated abuse. Rings of abusers go back at least to the 1940s in America, and abuse involved sacrilege, orgies, and probably murder (and perhaps even worse). Bishops knew about the abuse and sometimes took part in it. Those who complained were ignored or threatened, and the police refused to investigate crimes committed by clergy.</p><p>....The distortions in Catholic life that allowed the abuse to continue with little rebuke are, I think, of long standing; Catholic attitudes, in fact Western attitudes, to morality have been distorted for centuries by seeing morality as essentially obedience to an external law....</p><p>....The Vatican helped set the stage for the abuse by cultivating a clericalist mentality that saw the clergy as the real church, and making the purpose of canon law the protection of the rights and reputation of the clergy, not the protection of children from abuse.</p></blockquote><p>One can see where this is headed. So, apparently, did <a href="http://www.spencepublishing.com/" target="_blank">Spence Publishing</a>. Podles admits that they "refused to publish the book they had commissioned" because of gross descriptions of abuse that the author deemed "essential to the book." Spence puts out some excellent conservative works, and it is to their credit that they turned down <em>Sacrilege</em>. </p><p>Aside from the potential for voyeurism, such as one finds in pulp "true crime" shockers, there is the fact that Podles' attitude seems disingenuous. It is not surprising that it has been picked up by people who want a stick to beat Catholics with. In addition to Doyle there's A. W. Richard Sipe, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Priests-Power-Anatomy-Crisis/dp/0876307691/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product"><em>Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis</em></a>. Sipe contends that</p><blockquote><p>The scandal of priestly sexual abuse of minors... is primarily a symptom of an essentially flawed celibate/sexual system of ecclesiastical power.... Sex has always been problematic for the Roman Catholic Church. </p></blockquote><p>It is this same author who calls <em>Sacrilege </em>"indispensable for anyone seriously concerned about" the sex scandals. Of course, Podles, Doyle and Sipe overlook the fact that the problems in the Church are part of worldwide moral meltdown and that abuse is just as prevalent (and in some cases even more so) in other religious groups and secular institutions like public schools. This in no ways excuses clerical misconduct, but it does put it into a broader context. What Podles lacks is a sense of proportion. And in something as sensitive as this, a lack of nuance can be disastrous. A far more accurate and dispassionate study of the issue was provided in a special <a href="http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm" target="_blank">2004 report</a> by the Catholic League.</p><p>The fact that Podles is attacking a real evil is one thing. But there is a point at which criticism becomes self-destructive. Podles has found major allies amongst anti-Catholics, which shows that he may be more concerned with his pet project than in real reform of the clergy. As for <i>Touchstone</i>, up till now they have provided thoughtful commentary on religious and cultural topics. But this current lack of sensitivity is distressing.</p>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-19139582578464283072008-07-16T09:16:00.001-07:002008-07-16T09:30:50.466-07:00"Conservatives" Who are Part of the Problem?As someone once said of Joe Sobran: <em>"He is so far out to the right he's met up with his far left counterparts by way of the back door." </em>The problem here is with conservatives who cease to be conservatives, but are afraid to give up the label, and so they become disingenous and evasive enablers for lunatic ideologies. Not surprisingly Sobran has lost his broad support over the years, but manages to occasionally fool people into thinking he stands for traditional beliefs. For our readers' reference, here are some helpful discussions from the blog <a href="http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><em>Liberty Corner</em></a>:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2007/11/paleocons-and-legacy-of-samuel-francis.html">Paleocons and the Legacy of Samuel Francis</a> </li><li><a href="http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2008/01/sobrans-intellectual-decline-and-fall.html">Sobran's Intellectual Decline and Fall</a></li><li><a href="http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2008/01/joseph-sobran-final-verdict.html">Joseph Sobran: Final Verdict</a></li></ul>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-55763949775266366742008-05-30T10:26:00.000-07:002008-07-11T07:13:25.053-07:00The New Anti-Semitism<p>Actually the new anti-Semitism isn't that "new" (as will be shown below), but it does reflect a change in the direction of anti-Jewish paranoia over the last twenty-five years. </p><p>In the decades just after World War II, animosity towards Jews was typically confined to racialist neo-Nazi organizations. Amongst neo-fascists, of the Italian variety, anti-Semitism was less pronounced or simply non-existent. After all, Mussolini's original Fascist Party allowed Jewish members and had no racial program until 1938, when it came under the ideological pressure of its new ally Nazi Germany. Even then, anti-Jewish measures were relatively lenient (when compared to Hitler's program). Part of this was because Jews were a small and highly assimilated minority in Italian society. </p><p>But a new synthesis of radical nationalism emerged in the 1980s. Anti-Semitism took a slightly different turn. It became less markedly "racialist," but it was also more widespread. One reason for this change was that anti-Semitism was sold as "anti-Zionism" and opposition to Israel in conjunction with attacks on "capitalism" and America (which was seen as a multi-cultural cesspool as dangerous as, or more so, than Soviet Russia).</p><p>Contemporary hostility towards Jews can therefore be seen as part of a broader "anti-liberal" (anti-Western) crusade with roots in a <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/strange-ecumenism-paganchristian.html">gnostic "traditionalism"</a>. This anti-Jewish view is less the product of social Darwinian theories than it is of an apocalyptic political mentality. Jew-haters can be found across the racial spectrum. Even among white anti-Semites and Hitler-admirers there are people who are not your typical racialists. In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_revisionism" target="_blank">Holocaust revisionist</a> camp, Ted O'Keefe—who writes admiring studies of the Nazi Waffen SS—is (or was) in a long-standing relationship with a Japanese woman. Bradley Smith, organizer of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), has a Mexican wife. <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Sharpe">John Sharpe</a> (leader of the <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-sharpes-legion-of-st-louis.html">Legion of St. Louis</a>) is married to a Lebanese woman.</p><p>While these attitudes might seem less malevolent than "Aryan" race worship, it is in some ways more insidious. For one thing it allows people like John Sharpe or <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/search/label/E%20Michael%20Jones">E. Michael Jones</a> to deflect criticism by saying that they aren't "anti-Semitic," as if racial standards were the <em>only</em> determining factor. An excellent response to this rhetorical sidestepping is found on Christopher Blosser's <i>Against the Grain</i> <a href="http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/01/carl-schmitt-israel-shamir-and-robert.html" target="_blank">entry for January 19, 2007</a>. The relevant point is made in his comments about the religious anti-Semitism of Fr. Dennis Fahey</p><blockquote><p>A common strategy of those who intellectually flirt with (or worse, embrace) the ideological right is to confine the definition of anti-semitism to a purely racial hatred of the Jewish people, so as to excuse or explain away any other form of animosity toward the Jewish people.... Unfortunately, Fahey's restricted definition of anti-semitism didn't prohibit him from indulging in fantasies of Judeo-Masonic conspiracies so off the wall that Hillaire Belloc was moved to say "The thing is nonsense on the face of it." </p></blockquote><p>Yet another way of understanding the apparent contradictions of anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism is to recall that even Hitler's Germany was far from consistent in its race policies. Berlin was not only allied with the Asians of Japan, but it allowed the recruitment of Crimean Tatars (also Asians) into its armed forced in the war in Russia. Even its anti-Slavism was selective. German Nazis persecuted Poles and Russians, but allied themselves with Slovaks, Croatians and Ukrainians. Ultimately, claims about racial purity are belied by animosities which are driven more by political and cultural factors than purely biological ones. This was certainly the case in Hitler's support for Muslim and Arab nationalists, which has come to light since the publication of <i>Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsozialisten</i> ("The Mufti and the Holocaust") by Klaus Gensicke (see <a href="http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/01/carl-schmitt-israel-shamir-and-robert.html" target="_blank">book review in <i>Policy Review</i></a>). When the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, was first received by Hitler in Berlin (where he would take up residence for the remainder of the war), the Nazi leader assured him that "the sole German aim will be the destruction of the Jews living in the Arab space under the protection of British power." Arabs were racially as Semitic as Jews but their cultural and political position was totally different.</p><p>Nazi racial views boiled down to an irrational prejudice rather than a "scientific" worldview. Of course, Hitler looked with disdain on non-white Arabs, but during the war he was willing to modify his bigotry to suit wartime ambitions. Likewise we see that since the first Gulf War of 1991, anti-Semites and Hitlerites sought alliances with the Muslim world. They praised the late Saddam Hussein and now support Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (for his anti-Israeli diatribes and promotion of Holocaust revisionism).</p><p>This is not to say that racism isn't a problem. The hatred of any racial or ethnic group is an attempt to "simplify" some deep-seated social problem. And plenty of racially-motivated anti-Semites are still around. In fact a lot of them are to be found at events attended by people like Jones and Sharpe who, even as they publicly disavow racism, are nevertheless willing to <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2007/03/update-on-investigation-of-john-sharpe.html">join with old-fashioned bigots</a> in "common cause" against the perceived global threat of the Jews.</p>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-45702929370847980702008-05-28T07:31:00.000-07:002008-05-30T07:22:14.102-07:00More on Fiore: Partying with Nazis<p>As noted in our <a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2008/05/remnant-fiore-connection.html">last post</a>, the "traditional Catholic" paper <em>The Remnant</em> has come out endorsing groups involved with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Fiore" target="_blank">Roberto Fiore</a>, who is a major figure in the far-right, not only participating in violent Italian political gangs but in Europe-wide neo-fascism. Some solid proof of this is from a report by an <a href="http://www.ecopolis.org/nazirock-what-about-neo-fascist-italian-coalition/" target="_blank">Italian site</a> that describes a 2006 Nazi rock-fest in Italy, attended by Fiore, which featured openly pro-Hitler displays.</p><blockquote><p>During that event, called "Campo d'Azione 2006", souvenir stands sold badges showing the face of Hitler to be sewn onto sweaters as well as books denying the existence of the Holocaust, like the one written by Carlo Mattogno and entitled "Auschwitz: fine di una leggenda" (Auschwitz, the end of a legend). Until very late at night, in the large hangar that during the day was animated by speeches and discussions, we assisted to a very disquieting show featuring several rock bands frantically acclaimed by a crowd performing the nazi-fascist stiff-arm salute and sporting a huge banner, printed for the occasion and stating in large capital letters: "MORE NAZISM FOR US ALL". </p></blockquote><p>But this is nothing new, since Fiore's political beliefs have been an open book for years. <i>Fringe Watch</i> has discussed his activities on a number of occasions:</p><ul><li><a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/strange-ecumenism-paganchristian.html">Strange Ecumenism: The Pagan/Christian Fascist Front</a> (1/23/06)</li><li><a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/political-soldier-part-ii.html">The Political Soldier: Part II</a> (1/22/06)</li><li><a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2006/01/third-position-new-nationalism-and-new_19.html">The Third Position: The New Nationalism and the New Racialism</a> (1/19/06)</li><li><a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-sharpes-ties-to-holland-and-fiore.html">John Sharpe's Ties to Holland and Fiore</a> (12/31/05)</li><li><a href="http://fringewatcher.blogspot.com/search?q=fiore">Brandsma Review on "Catholic" Extremist Infiltration</a> (12/28/05)</li><br /></ul><p>Awareness of Mr. Fiore as an outspoken fascist is important since he has been trying to inject extremism into Catholic circles since the early 1980s.</p>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38754118.post-37123827637606036512008-05-28T06:34:00.000-07:002008-05-30T07:20:01.284-07:00The Remnant-Fiore Connection?<p>In late 2006 the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) issued "The Dirty Dozen," its expose of alleged political extremism in Catholic circles. As noted previously on this blog, "the Southern Poverty Law Center—being inexperienced in the doctrinal nuances of Catholicism... really does more harm than good in addressing these matters, in that they tar 'traditionalist Catholics' with a wide brush." </p><p>Still, there is a sad irony in that <i>some</i> of the SPLC's charges are sticking. One example is Michael Matt's <i>Remnant</i> newspaper, which is nothing if not idiosyncratic. <i>The Remnant</i> has seen fit to maintain neo-fascist and anti-Semitic connections despite growing criticism. And the odd thing is that just a few years ago Michael Matt was denouncing these same trends. What changed his mind? He'll have to answer that himself. </p><p>Certain points made about <i>The Remnant</i> by the SPLC are impossible to explain away, like articles which endorse Holocaust revisionism or indulge in paranoid Jewish conspiracy theories (<a href="http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1300" target="_blank">see bottom of this page of the SPLC site</a>). Now, if it had been a one-off thing, a mere journalistic eccentricity, it could be overlooked. But there's a real trend here which has only hardened in recent weeks with Michael Matt's endorsement of a website called <i>Tradizione, Cattolicesimo & Politica</i>, which is in league with the neo-fascist Forza Nuova of Roberto Fiore. For more details, see the <a href="http://thechambersinitiative.blogspot.com/2008/05/not-smart-move.html">May 24 report by <i>The Chambers Initiative</i></a>. </p><p>As much as one might dislike leftists rummaging in the dirty laundry of fellow Catholics, until we see fit to clean it ourselves, we can expect outsiders to complain about the mess. Nor should the SPLC reportage become a red herring. After all, how can Michael Matt's paper treat the SPLC reports as paranoia but do nothing to distance itself from the political lunatics? </p><p>To sum up, it was <i>Fringe Watch</i> and other Catholic commentators (conservative and traditional) who warned about this problem long before the professional purveyors of leftwing "tolerance" got hold of it. But people didn't listen. Perhaps they thought it was a nuisance that would just go away. Maybe... but at the offices of <i>The Remnant </i>it hasn't.</p>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com