The Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies....more controversy

A board member of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College has written an email to Ms. Marie Tremblay (who has contributed to FaithfulVoice.com) and has admitted that the Holocaust may not be attributed to Catholic teaching. However, in his email, this board member asserts that, "..many of the worst perpetrators of the Holocaust were Catholics from Germany and Italy...including Adolph Hitler."

But was Hitler really a Catholic? We read here: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=32525 that Hitler desired "to trample the Catholic Church 'as one does a frog.'" Additionally, on September 9, 1943, Hitler said, "I'll go into the Vatican when I like. Do you think the Vatican worries me? We'll grab it. Yes, the whole diplomatic bunch is in there. I couldn't care less. That bunch in there, we'll drag them out, the whole swinish pack of them. What does it matter? We can apologize afterwards, that's nothing to worry about."

Contrary to what some may believe, the Nazis and the Italian Fascists knew that the Catholic Church and Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were their enemies. For example, Benito Mussolini told his foreign minister Count Ciano (on August 8, 1938): "I do not underestimate [Pius XI's] strength, but he must not underestimate mine either....A sign from me would be enough to unleash all the anti-clericalism of the Italian people who already find it hard enough to swallow a Jewish God." And Roberto Farinacci, the editor of Italy's official Fascist newspaper, Regime Fascista, wrote the following in October of 1942: "The Church's obstruction of the practical solution of the Jewish problem constitutes a crime against the New Europe."

In 1998, Cornell University released documents from the Nuremberg Trials which revealed that Hitler planned to end Christianity at the end of World War II: http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/index.cfm). Furthermore, General William Donovan, a senior member of the U.S. prosecution team at Nuremberg, as part of his work documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled copious amounts of documentation which show that the Nazis planned to systematically destroy Christianity: http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf)

There can be little doubt that the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College is staffed by individuals who suffer from an anti-Catholic bias. Let's continue to pray that the Center will issue an apology for the anti-Catholic remark issued by Mr. Henry Knight [the Director of the Cohen Center] which was posted at the Cohen Center Blog.

Our Lady never experienced concupiscence

The Blessed Virgin Mary never experienced concupiscence. Concupiscence is defined as the inclination to sin arising from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Although concupiscence is not evil per se, it does lead to sin when its impulses are not checked (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 376, 400, 405, 2514-2527).

The Council of Trent said that concupiscence flows from Original Sin and leads to sin. But Our Lady, having been immaculately conceived, was preserved from sin from the first moment of her existence because of the foreseen merits of her divine Son. It follows that since Our Lady did not have Original Sin, she also did not have the consequence of it, namely, concupiscence or evil desire.

As Rev. Alban Butler explains:


So great are the advantages we reap from the incarnation of the Son of God that to contemplate it, and to thank and praise him for the same, ought to be the primary object of all our devotions and the employment of our whole lives. In the feast of the Conception of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God we celebrate the joyful dawning of that bright day of mercy, the first appearance which that most glorious of all pure creatures made in the world, with those first seeds of grace which produced the most admirable fruit in her soul. Her conception was itself a glorious mystery, a great grace, and the first effect of her predestination.

Her Divine Son, the eternal God, in the first moment of her being, considered the sublime dignity to which he had decreed to raise her, and remembered that august, dear, sacred, and venerable name of his mother, which she was one day to bear; and he beheld her with a complacency, and distinguished her in a manner, suitable to so near a relation she was to bear. He called her not his servant in whom he gloried, as he did Israel, but his mother, whom for the sake of his own glory he decreed exceedingly to exalt in grace and glory. From that instant the eternal Word of God, which was to take flesh of her, looked upon it as particularly incumbent on him, in the view of his future incarnation, to sanctify this virgin, to enrich her with his choicest gifts, and to heap upon her the most singular favours with a profusion worthy his omnipotence.

From that very moment he prepared her to be his most holy tabernacle. When Almighty God commanded a temple to be built to his honour in Jerusalem, what preparations did he not ordain! What purity did he not require in the things that belonged to that work, even in the persons and materials that were employed in it! David, though a great saint, was excepted against by God, because he had been stained with blood spilt in just wars. Again, what purifications, consecrations, rites, and ceremonies did he not order to sanctify all the parts of the building! This for a material temple, in which the ark was to be placed, and men were to offer their homages and sacrifices to his adorable Majesty. What, then, did he not do for Mary in spiritually decking her, whose chaste womb was to be his living tabernacle, from whose pure flesh he was to derive his own most holy body, and of whom he would himself be born!

The first condition in the spiritual embellishing of a soul is perfect purity, or cleanness from whatever can be a blot or stain in her. A skilful statuary is careful, in the first place, that there be no irregularity or deformity in the piece which he is going to carve. Almighty God therefore was pleased to preserve this holy Virgin from contracting any stain of sin, whether original or actual. Without the privilege of an extraordinary grace, the greatest saints daily fall into venial sins of surprise and inadvertence, through a neglect of a universal watchfulness over all the secret motions of their hearts in the course of action. But Mary was distinguished by this rare privilege, and by the succour of an extraordinary grace was so strengthened that her interior beauty was never sullied with the least spot, and charity or the divine love never suffered the least remission or abatement in her soul; but from the moment in which she attained the use of reason, increased, and she continually pressed forward with fresh ardour towards the attainment of higher perfection in virtue and holiness.

Her exemption from original sin was yet a more extraordinary privilege of grace. It is an undoubted truth that she was sanctified and freed from original sin before she was born, and that she was brought into this world in a state of perfect sanctity. It is defined as an article of faith that in her very conception she was immaculate. It is needless here to produce the passages of holy scripture usually alleged by theologians, and other proofs by which this doctrine is confirmed. It is founded in the clear testimonies of the most illustrious among the fathers, in the decrees of several particular councils, and the suffrages of most learned and eminent masters of the theological schools. The very respect which we owe to the Mother of God, and the honour which is due to her divine Son, incline us to believe this privilege most suitable to her state of spotless sanctity.

St. Austin thought this reason sufficient for exempting her, whenever mention is made of sin. "Out of reverence," says he, "and for the honour which is due to her Son, I will have no question put about her when we speak of any sin." Christ was no less her Redeemer, Reconciler, and most perfect Saviour and Benefactor, by preserving her from this stain, than he would have been by cleansing her from it: as by descending from Adam she was liable to this debt, and would have contracted the contagion had she not been preserved from it through the grace and merits of her Son.

To understand how great a grace and how singular a prerogative this total exemption from all sin was in Mary, we may take a survey of the havoc that monster made amongst men from the beginning of the world, excepting Mary The most holy amongst the saints all received their existence in sin; they were all obliged to say with St. Paul, "We were the children of wrath, even as the rest." The fall of our first father Adam involved ill mankind in guilt and misery. From that time, for the space of four thousand years, sin reigned without control On every side. By its dire effects the greatest part of the world was plunged into the most frightful state of spiritual darkness and blindness. Even the sons of light were born under its slavery; Abraham, Moses, Elias; Jeremy' Job, and all the other saints confessed with David, "Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sin my mother conceived me." Sin was become a universal leprosy, a contagion which no one could escape; an evil common to all mankind, and infecting every particular individual that descended from Adam. It was communicated with the flesh and blood which men received from their parents, and from their first father Adam. Every child contracted this infection with the first principle of life. Mary, by a singular privilege, was exempted from it, and entered a world of sin spotless and holy.

The grace which exempted Mary from original sin preserved her also from the sting of concupiscence, or inordinate love of creatures, and tendency to evil. The first sin of Adam brought on us a deluge of evils, and by the two wounds of ignorance and concupiscence which it has left in us its malignity has spread its influence over all the powers of our souls. Through it our understanding is liable to be deceived and to be led away with errors; our will is abandoned to the assaults of the basest passions: our senses are become inlets of dangerous suggestions: we are subjected to spiritual weakness, inconstancy, and vanity, and are tyrannized over by inordinate appetites. Hence proceeds in us a difficulty in doing good, a repugnance to our duties, a proneness to evil, the poisoned charm of vice, and the intestine war of the flesh against the spirit. All this we experience and groan under; yet under the weight of such miseries, by a much greater evil, we are blind, proud, and insensible. We court our dangers, indulge and fortify our enemies, and caress and adore those idols which we are bound to destroy. To procure for ourselves some part in the blessing which Mary enjoyed in the empire over our passions, we must cheek them, restrain our senses, and die to ourselves. We must never cease sighing to God, to implore his aid against this domestic enemy, and never enter into any truce with him. "Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak; heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled."

If our weakness and dangers call for our tears' we have still much greater reason to weep for our guilt and repeated transgressions. Whereas grace in Mary triumphed even over original sin; we, on the contrary, even after baptism and penance, by which we were cleansed from sin, return to it again, increase our hereditary weakness and miseries; and, what is of all things most grievous, infinitely aggravate out guilt by daily offences. "Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?" O, Mother of Mercy, let your happy privilege, your exemption from all sin and concupiscence, inspire you with pity for our miseries: and by your spotless purity and abundant graces obtain for us strength against all our dangers; the deliverance from all our miseries, and the most powerful remedies of divine grace.

Mary, in her conception, was not only free from stain, but moreover was adorned with the most precious graces, so as to appear beautiful and glorious in the eyes of God. And the grace she then received was the seed of the great virtues which she exercised, and the higher graces to which, by the improvement of her first stock, she was afterwards raised, during the whole course of her mortal life. By the first graces she was free from all inclination to accursed pride and from all inordinate self-love, and remained always perfectly empty of herself. This disposition she expressed when honoured with the highest graces and exalted to the most sublime and wonderful spiritual dignity; under which, sinking lower in her own abyss of weakness and nothingness, she sincerely and purely gave all glory to him. She confessed aloud that he chose her not for any merit, or anything he saw in her, but because he would signalize his omnipotence by choosing the weakest and meanest instrument, and because he saw in her the nothingness in which he most fitly exerted and manifested his infinite power and greatness. By a lurking pride we obstruct the designs of the divine mercy in our favour. The vessel of our heart cannot receive the plentiful effusion of divine grace so long as it is filled with the poison of self-love. The more perfectly it is cleansed and empty, the more is it fitted to receive. As the prophet called for vessels that were empty, that they might be filled with miraculous oil; so must we present to God hearts that are perfectly empty, when we pray that he replenish them with his grace. The exercise of humility, meekness, patience, resignation, obedience, self-denial, rigorous self-examination, compunction, and penance begin the work: but prayer and divine love perfect the cleansing of the fountain from which they spring. Thus are we to attain that purity of heart and affections by which we shall bear some degree of resemblance to the holy Mother of God. This grace we ought earnestly to beg of God, through her intercession, and particularly to commend to him, through her, the preservation of the holy virtue of purity.

The Immaculate Conception of the holy Mother of God was not only in itself a great and glorious mystery, but likewise joyful to mankind. Certain glimmerings of the benefit of our Redemption had gone before from the fall of Adam in several revelations, types, and figures; in which the distant prospect of this wonderful mercy filled the patriarchs and other saints of the old law with comfort and holy joy. But the conception of Mary displayed the first rays of its approaching light, and may be said to have been its rising morning, or the dawning of its day. In this mystery she appeared pure and glorious, shining among the daughters of Adam as a " lily among thorns." To her from the moment of her conception God said, "Thou art all beautiful, my love, and there is no spot in thee." She was the "enclosed garden," which the serpent could never enter; and the "sealed fountain," which he never defiled.

She was the throne and the tabernacle of the true Solomon, and the ark of the testament to contain, not corruptible manna, but the Author of the incorruptible life of our souls. Saluting her with these epithets, in exultation and praise, let us sing with the church, "This is the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary, of the seed of Abraham, sprung from the tribe of Juda, illustrious of the house of David, whose life, by its brightness, illustrates all churches."

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/IMCONBVM.HTM

An open letter to Bishop Robert J. McManus

- "At the side of Jesus, see Mary his Mother, who was never stained with any sin, original or actual, yet whose pure and loving heart was pierced through."

- St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort

I have written His Excellency, The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, to address my concerns regarding a homily given by the pastor of a Catholic parish located within his Diocese. Here is that letter:

December 26, 2007

The Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Bishop of Worcester
49 Elm Street
Worcester, Ma 01609


Your Excellency,


It is with a heavy heart that I write to you to express my concerns regarding a homily given by Rev. ----- during Holy Mass on Christmas Day at ------ Parish in ------.
During his homily, Fr. ----- described Our Lady as having entertained sinful thoughts. Specifically, he implied that she would have harbored resentment against St. Joseph (for having thought that she had been unfaithful to him) and for the conditions which she had to endure both on the road to - and while giving birth at - Bethlehem.

In his declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception given on December 8, 1854, Blessed Pius IX of happy memory stated clearly that, "..the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of God omnipotent and because of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race, free from all stain of Original Sin."

Our Lady was conceived in the state of perfect justice, free from Original Sin and its consequences, in virtue of the redemption achieved by Christ on the Cross. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 492, teaches that, "The ‘splendor of an entirely unique holiness’ by which Mary is ‘enriched from the first instant of her conception’ comes wholly from Christ: she is ‘redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.’ The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person ‘in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places’ and chose her ‘in Christ before the foundations of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.’" (CCC, 492, citing Lumen Gentium, Nos 53, 56; Ephesians 1: 3-4).

The Catechism assures us that: "It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of ‘the law of Christ.’ From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the ‘way.’ From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary." (CCC, No. 2030).

Our Lady is not only the model of holiness but she is Mediatrix of all Graces. Pope Benedict XIV taught that, "Our Lady is like a celestial stream through which the flow of all graces and gifts reach the soul of all wretched mortals." (Op. Omnia, v.16, ed., Prati, 1846, p. 428). And Pope Pius XII, speaking of Our Lady, said that, "She teaches us all virtues; she gives us her Son and with Him all the help we need, for ‘God wished us to have everything through Mary.’" (Mediator Dei, 1947).

Rather than encouraging the faithful under his care to strive toward greater holiness while using Our Lady as a model of something far better to reach for, it would seem that Fr. ----- would prefer to drag Our Lady down to the level of the ordinary "wretched mortal" (to borrow Pope Benedict XIV’s phrase) in an attempt to convince us that we are really not that wretched after all.

Fr. -----'s homily was both morally offensive and grossly inappropriate. Especially considering the fact that it was delivered on Christmas Day. Not that his comments would have been edifying on any other day. One has to wonder if Fr. ----- has an adequate understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It would appear that such is not the case. Either that, or knowing that ---- radio out of ------- is broadcasting the Mass, perhaps Fr. ----- is more concerned with his image and appealing to a mass audience which can be hostile toward devotion to Mary than he is with offering authentic Catholic teaching.

At any rate, I believe this situation should be addressed Your Excellency. The faithful have a right to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).

Asking Your Excellency’s Blessing,
I am, Yours Respectfully

Paul Anthony Melanson

Our Lady: Model of Holiness

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2030, teaches us that: "It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of 'the law of Christ.' From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the 'way.' From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary..."


This morning, at Christmas Mass, the pastor of my parish described Our Lady as having entertained sinful thoughts. Specifically, he implied that she would have harbored resentment against St. Joseph (for having thought that she had been unfaithful to him) and for the conditions which she had to endure while giving birth in Bethlehem. This priest asked the married women in the parish if they wouldn't hold a grudge against their husband if he accused them of having been unfaithful. What this priest fails to understand, however, is that Our Lady was conceived without any stain of Original Sin and, as a result, never committed any sin during her lifetime. Again the Catechism:


After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium ("first gospel"): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'" (CCC, 410-412).

It may be difficult for this priest to understand the fact that Our Lady never even entertained sinful thoughts or held grudges. But it is nevertheless true. Let's all pray for this priest: that he will come to see Our Lady as a model of holiness and will come to understand and acknowledge the fact that the Immaculata never entertained sinful thoughts.

From the La Salette Journey Archives...

"In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one's brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one's cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance." (1435).

In other words, our transformation in Christ, our daily conversion, is made manifest by such gestures of reconciliation by which we demonstrate our commitment toward the theological virtue of charity "by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God" (CCC, 1822). "

Read the rest by clicking on this Blog post title.

A point not understood by the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies

Catholics offended by the anti-Catholic comment made by Mr. Henry F. Knight which was posted at the Blog for the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College are still awaiting an apology. Mr. Knight has referred to, "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies."

By clicking on the link above, you will be taken to yet another article which refutes this spurious claim.

The Cohen Center should promptly apologize for Mr. Knight's anti-Catholic remark. Failure to do so will only serve to diminish the credibility of the Center. A credibility which has already been tarnished.

As part of a comment left at The Keene Sentinel Blog thread entitled "Richmond: A Town Divided?", a Catholic layman named Dale who is a regular reader of this Blog wrote, "If Keene State College isn't anti-Catholic, why has the student newspaper, The Equinox, published an article titled "Town residents express concern about Catholic group"? The article may be found here: www.keeneequinox.com/news/2007/12/06/News/Town-Residents.Express.Concern.About.Catholic.Group-3137245.shtml

The Diocese has stated quite clearly that the SBC has "no affiliation" with either the Diocese or the Roman Catholic Church. So why is that publication attempting to convince students that the SBC (which is anti-Semitic) is "Catholic." Clearly, this is an attempt to portray Catholicism as being somehow "anti-Semitic." And such an approach is truly reprehensible besides being dishonest."

Not a bad question.

Abortion may never be considered a "right."

In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 68-73, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"One of the specific characteristics of present-day attacks on human life-as has already been said several times-consists in the trend to demand a legal justification for them, as if they were rights which the State, at least under certain conditions, must acknowledge as belonging to citizens. Consequently, there is a tendency to claim that it should be possible to exercise these rights with the safe and free assistance of doctors and medical personnel.

It is often claimed that the life of an unborn child or a seriously disabled person is only a relative good: according to a proportionalist approach, or one of sheer calculation, this good should be compared with and balanced against other goods. It is even maintained that only someone present and personally involved in a concrete situation can correctly judge the goods at stake: consequently, only that person would be able to decide on the morality of his choice. The State therefore, in the interest of civil coexistence and social harmony, should respect this choice, even to the point of permitting abortion and euthanasia.

At other times, it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia.

Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.

Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others.

In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.

At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.
It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a "system" and as such is a means and not an end. Its "moral" value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive "sign of the times", as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the "common good" as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable "majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis.

Some might think that even this function, in the absence of anything better, should be valued for the sake of peace in society. While one acknowledges some element of truth in this point of view, it is easy to see that without an objective moral grounding not even democracy is capable of ensuring a stable peace, especially since peace which is not built upon the values of the dignity of every individual and of solidarity between all people frequently proves to be illusory.

Even in participatory systems of government, the regulation of interests often occurs to the advantage of the most powerful, since they are the ones most capable of manoeuvering not only the levers of power but also of shaping the formation of consensus. In such a situation, democracy easily becomes an empty word.

It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential and innate human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote.

Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.

Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life.

The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force".

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life.

In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)."

There are those who, having embraced a concentration-camp mentality, believe that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. Such people deny the equality of everyone before the law. It is ironic how some individuals can condemn one Holocaust while referring to another Holocaust - the Holocaust of innocent unborn children - as a "right":http://sbcwatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-readers.html

By clicking on the title of this Blog post, you will be taken to a photo gallery maintained by the Priests for Life website. As you review these heart-wrenching photographs of the murdered bodies of innocent children, ask yourself if those who propagandize for so-called "abortion rights" while condemning the Holocaust which took place during the Second World War are really interested in defending the common good and have a respect for human life or if they're only politicizing the Holocaust to further their own political agenda.

A return to tradition....

Anti-Catholicism in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States

"John Highham described anti-Catholic bigotry as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history".

Bigotry against the Roman Catholic Church and its followers, which was prominent in the United Kingdom from the seventeenth century onwards, was exported to the United States.

Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society. The first, derived from the heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth century, consisted of the "Anti-Christ" and the "Whore of Babylon" variety and dominated anti-Catholic thought until the late seventeenth century. The second was a more secular variety which focused on the supposed intrigue of the Roman Catholics intent on extending medieval despotism worldwide.

Harvard professor and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. characterized prejudice against the Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and Yale professor Peter Viereck once commented that "Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals"....

Anti-Catholic animus in the United States reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the influx of Roman Catholic immigrants. The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Roman Catholic property, and the killing of Roman Catholics.

This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States. Irish Catholic immigrants were blamed for raising the taxes of the country as well as spreading violence and disease. The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856. Similar sentiment was also manifested in the Ku Klux Klan. The case of the murder of Father James Coyle, although also motivated by ethnic bigotry, was a prime example of anti-Catholic violence in the US.

In 1834, lurid tales of sexual slavery and infanticide in convents prompted the burning of an Ursuline convent in Charlestown, Mass., setting off nearly two decades of violence against Catholics. The resulting anti-Catholic riots (which included the burning of churches), were largely centered in the major urban centers of the country and led to the creation of the nativist Know-Nothing Party in 1854, whose platform included a straightforward condemnation of the Catholic Church.

By 1850 Catholics had become the country’s largest single religious denomination. And between 1860 and 1890 the population of Catholics in the United States tripled through immigration; by the end of the decade it would reach seven million. This influx, largely Irish and Italian, which would eventually bring increased political power for the Catholic Church and a greater cultural presence, led at the same time to a growing fear of the Catholic "menace." The American Protective Association, for example, formed in Iowa in 1887, sponsored popular countrywide tours of supposed ex-priests and "escaped" nuns, who concocted horrific tales of mistreatment and abuse.

As the nineteenth century wore on animosity waned, Protestant Americans realized that Roman Catholics were not trying to seize control of the government. Nonetheless, fears continued into the twentieth century that there was too much "Catholic influence" on the government, and presidents who met with the pope were criticized.....

By the beginning of the 20th century, approximately one-sixth of the population of the United States was Catholic. Nevertheless, the powerful influence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and other nativist organizations were typical of still-potent anti-Catholic sentiments.
During the 20th century, suspicion of the political aims and agenda of the Roman Catholic Church have been revived several times.

In 1928 the presidential candidacy of Al Smith was greeted with a fresh wave of anti-Catholic hysteria that contributed to his defeat. (It was widely rumored at the time that with the election of Mr. Smith the pope would take up residence in the White House and Protestants would find themselves stripped of their citizenship.)

In 1949, Paul Blanshard's book American Freedom and Catholic Power portrayed the Roman Catholic Church as an anti-democratic force hostile to freedom of speech and religion, eager to impose itself on the United States by boycott and subterfuge

As Charles R. Morris noted in his recent book American Catholic, the real mainstreaming of the church did not occur until the 1950’s and 1960’s, when educated Catholics—sons and daughters of immigrants—were finally assimilated into the larger culture. Even so, John F. Kennedy was confronted during his 1960 presidential campaign with old anti-Catholic biases. He eventually felt compelled to address explicitly concerns of his supposed "allegiance" to the Pope. Many Protestant leaders, such as Norman Vincent Peale, publicly opposed the candidacy because of Kennedy’s religion. And after the election, survey research by political scientists found that Kennedy had indeed lost votes because of his religion.

Although most historians have argued that Kennedy's election eliminated anti-Catholic bias as a major factor in American life, it should be noted that, while several Catholics have been nominated for President, no Catholic has been elected President of the United States since Kennedy in 1960.

Twenty-first century
Philip Jenkins, an Episcopalian historian, in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 0-19-515480-0) maintains that some people who otherwise avoid offending members of racial, religious, ethnic or gender groups have no reservations about venting their hatred of Catholics." (Source: Wikipedia; cited above).

The Violence of Love

I will not tire of declaring that if we really want an effective end to violence we must remove the violence that lies at the root of all violence: structural violence, social injustice, exclusion of citizens from the management of the country, repression. All this is what constitutes the primal cause, from which the rest flows naturally.

I'm deeply impressed by that moment when Christ stands alone before the world figured in Pilate. The truth is left alone, his own followers have been afraid. Truth is fearfully daring, and only heroes can follow the truth. So much so that Peter, who has said he will die if need be, flees like a coward and Christ stands alone.

Let's not be afraid to be left alone if it's for the sake of the truth. Let's be afraid to be demagogs, coveting the people's sham flattery. If we don't tell them the truth, we commit the worst sin: betraying the truth and betraying the people. Christ would rather be left alone, but able to say before the world figured in Pilate: Everyone who hears my voice belongs to the truth.

Would that the many bloodstained hands in our land were lifted up to the Lord with horror of their stain to pray that he might cleanse them. But let those who, thanks to God, have clean hands -- the children, the sick, the suffering -- lift up their innocent and suffering hands to the Lord like the people of Israel in Egypt. The Lord will have pity and will say, as he did to Moses in Egypt, "I have heard my people's cry of wailing. It is the prayer that God cannot fail to hear.
The church is calling to sanity, to understanding, to love. It does not believe in violent solutions. The church believes in only one violence, that of Christ, who was nailed to the cross. That is how today's gospel reading shows him, taking upon himself all the violence of hatred and misunderstanding, so that we humans might forgive one another, love one another, feel ourselves brothers and sisters.

We have never preached violence, except the violence of love, which left Christ nailed to a cross, the violence that we must each do to ourselves, to overcome our selfishness and such cruel inequalities among us. The violence we preach is not the violence of the sword, the violence of hatred. It is the violence of love, of brotherhood, the violence that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work.

Who knows if the one whose hands are bloodied with Father Grande's murder, or the one who shot Father Navarro, if those who have killed, who have tortured, who have done so much evil, are listening to me? Listen, there in your criminal hideout, perhaps already repentant, you too are called to forgiveness.

A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good so that they become entrenched in their sinful state, betrays the gospel's call. A preaching that does not discomfit sinners but lulls them in their sin leaves Zebulun and Naphtali in the shadow of death.

A preaching that awakens, a preaching that enlightens -- as when a light turned on awakens and of course annoys a sleeper -- that is the preaching of Christ, calling, "wake up! Be converted!" this is the church's authentic preaching. Naturally, such preaching must meet conflict, must spoil what is miscalled prestige, must disturb, must be persecuted. It cannot get along with the powers of darkness and sin."

- Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred Archbishop of San Salvador.

Anti-Catholicism at Keene State College's Cohen Center

Today's first reading at Holy Mass is taken from Isaiah 11: 1-10:

"On that day, a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom. The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD. Not by appearance shall he judge, nor by hearsay shall he decide, but he shall judge the poor with justice, and decide aright for the land’s afflicted. He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips. Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together,with a little child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall be neighbors, together their young shall rest; the lion shall eat hay like the ox. The baby shall play by the cobra’s den, and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair. There shall be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea. On that day, the root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the nations, the Gentiles shall seek out, for his dwelling shall be glorious."

This prophecy from Isaiah speaks of a time when Jesus will return to establish His Kingdom on earth, a Kingdom where truth, justice and righteousness will reign. And how can we prepare for this glorious Kingdom on earth? St. Paul provides us with the way:

"I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. For by the grace given to me I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than one ought to think, but to think soberly, each according to the measure of faith that God has apportioned. For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them: if prophecy, in proportion to the faith; if ministry, in ministering; if one is a teacher, in teaching; if one exhorts, in exhortation; if one contributes, in generosity; if one is over others, with diligence; if one does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honor. Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the holy ones, exercise hospitality. Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good." (Romans 12: 2-21).

St. Paul exhorts us to try to live at peace with all and to practice hospitality toward all. Sadly, there are those whose idea of "hospitality" does not include all but only those persons who march in lockstep with their own ideology. Such a "hospitality" is offered at Keene State College and its Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies, a "hospitality" which attempts to demonize opposition to homosexuality as a form of mental illness: "homophobia." A "hospitality" which levels false allegations against the Catholic Church of having entertained "traditional forms of anti-Semitism" in her teachings. A spurious allegation which has been totally refuted here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/call-for-apology.html. A "hospitality" which makes excuses for the following anti-Catholic quotation which was posted at SBC Watch:

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government”, and, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” “May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.."

When a woman named Ellen Wironken objected to this truly reprehensible quotation, an individual named Peter Majoy*, who appears to have some sort of connection with Keene State's Cohen Center, responded by writing, "I can understand how you feel given what I am assuming to be your faith place within the conservative-liberal interpretive spectrum of Roman Catholicism. To that extent, I have no problem offering an apology to you for the feelings the Jefferson quote triggered within you. On the other hand, and for many reasons, I don’t share your assessment of the quote..."

And why is this? Mrs. Wironken objected to this quotation being cited at the SBC Watch Blog [which is featured prominently at the Cohen Center Blog and has been featured in an article published in the Keene State College student newspaper The Equinox] because it adds nothing positive to charitable discussion and in no way contributes to an authentic hospitality. Priest-ridden people? Is the priesthood a disease? The priest has been hostile to liberty? He is always in alliance with the despot? Monkish ignorance and superstition? What is it about Mrs. Wironken's assessment of that horrendous quotation that Mr. Majoy doesn't agree with? Perhaps he would be so kind as to be a tad bit more specific?

Are Keene State College and the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies really interested in an authentic hospitality? It would seem not. Rather, it would appear that those associated with these entities are more interested in sowing the seeds of division, disunity and discord when it comes to practicing hospitality toward Catholics.

What a shame.

* Mr. Peter Majoy has left a comment at the Cohen Center Blog which is critical of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights:

Dear Readers,
Reference to The Catholic League has been made in the context of claims that anti-catholic bigotry has been practiced by the Cohen Center, SBCWatch, and certain individuals. Please go to the following web site to read information about The Catholic League: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/4/104521/2225


Thanks.
Pete Majoy

Source: http://keeneweb.org/cohencenter

The link provided by Mr. Peter Majoy takes one to a website belonging to a group calling itself Talk to Action. This organization has a statement of purpose:

"Statement of Purpose

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it.

There is an editorial framework for this site than that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic."

Now we can see what is driving Mr. Majoy, an individual closely associated with the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College. It also helps to explain the organization's use of the word "homophobia." Apparently the Cohen Center is using the Holocaust to advance a political agenda which is at odds with Catholic moral teaching. Why else would Mr. Majoy recommend a link to an organization promoting abortion, homosexuality and even same-sex "marriage"?

Hospitality or coercion?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Catholic League: Media ignore sexual abuse in the public schools:

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1354

A Sign of Contradiction....

A gentleman named Evan posted a comment here indicating that he would like to see the Cohen Center issue an apology for Mr. Knight's remarks regarding the Catholic Church. What follows is his comment and my response:


Paul, I sure hope they do. I want to believe the best about the Cohen Center. I hope they make this right. My heart has been so very heavy about all of this that I just wrote this at the Sentinel Blog.

"I would like to add my own thoughts and then I will say no more. I have visited the various Blogs mentioned. In the course of visiting the SBC Watch Blog, several individuals - including David Kochman and Susan - expressed their concerns over a Blog post which had to do with Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida. Specifically, the authors of SBC Watch were attempting to equate this fine Catholic community with the SBC. I remember Susan and David Kochman expressing their concern over the fact that Blog posts and comments were becoming anti-Catholic in both tone and tenor.

Therefore, it is false for anyone to suggest that Susan and the other Catholics who complained about anti-Catholic comments at SBC Watch many months ago have suddenly changed their mind and are opposing SBC Watch or efforts to oppose the now-documented anti-Semitism of the SBC.

At least Susan, Paul, Elizabeth and others who are Catholic are consistent. I really appreciated Elizabeth's post here where she said she and Paul oppose every form of discrimination. Shouldn't we all? Why the rage at Paul for standing against anti-Catholicism? The Southern Poverty Law Center has not only opposed anti-Semitism but anti-Catholicism and anti-Catholic groups as well.

Why can't we object to every variety of unjust discrimination. Why should anti-Catholicism be acceptable? This really bothers me greatly. If those who have been actively resisting the hatred which comes from the SBC are motivated not by a desire to oppose hatred but by a desire to attack Catholicism, this would be very tragic.

I agree with what David Kochman said. We should also avoid anti-Catholicism. I really respect him for that."
12:36 PM

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

I hope they do too Evan. It would be the right thing to do. Especially since so many have been offended. But primarily because the comment was offensive in and of itself. Even Mr. White realizes this in his heart I suspect and that is why he tried to convince me that Mr. Knight was referring to Christianity in general and not the Catholic Church.

You know what would be so amusing were it not so tragic? I have been labelled a "turncoat" and a "traitor" by an SBC supporter and now one of those who has been opposing the Saint Benedict Center is basically saying the same thing. I haven't changed my mind on anything. I have always opposed prejudice and discrimination wherever I find it. Jesus calls us to be a Sign of Contradiction.

I have had liberals berate me for being "too conservative" and conservatives berate me for being "too liberal." I have had homosexual activists viciously attack me because I oppose homosexual acts on the basis of Catholic teaching and have been attacked and ridiculed by some Catholics for defending homosexual persons from unfair attacks against their character or person - especially in the form of hateful epithets.

As Catholics, we are called to follow the Lord Jesus. No one ever said it would be easy. In fact, the way is narrow isn't it?

God love you Brother. Hang in there.

Will the Cohen Center issue an apology?

In another comment left at this Blog by Mr. Tom White (which he asked me not to publish), Mr. White says in part: "..Hank's wording of 'the Church' was a broader reference to Christianity and not specific to the Catholic Church."

Realizing that his first argument has failed and that Papal apologies are in no way to be interpreted as apologies for "doctrinal errors," Mr. White is now attempting to convince me that Hank [Mr. Henry F. Knight, Director of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies] was not really referring to the Catholic Church specifically but to Christianity in general.

Actually Mr. White, nice try babe. In reality, Mr. Knight wrote: "The St. Benedict Center, home base to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the religious community known also as the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center, sees itself as the guardian of traditional Roman Catholic truth, especially the pre-Vatican II teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 'Outside the Church there is no salvation.' More specifically, the Benedict Center has been cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a religious hate group that opposes the re-examination of traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies.."

Obviously, given the context of this paragraph, Mr. Knight was referring to the Catholic Church specifically. His statement refers to how the SBC "sees itself as the guardian of traditional Roman Catholic truth" and then asserts how the SBC "opposes the re-examination of traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies.."

Will the Cohen Center apologize for issuing offensive remarks, the purpose of which was to malign the Catholic Church? Excuses simply won't do.

Paul.

Knee-jerk response from a student at Keene State College

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A call for an apology...

The Church remains spotless even when Her members sin

There is absolutely no doubt that the human history of the Church, like all of human history, has its dark pages. But if anyone cares to take an objective look at this history, one must quickly acknowledge that the doctrine of the Church has always implicitly condemned abuses introduced by Her members.

In the words of Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "There were sinners in the Church yesterday and there are sinners in the Church today. But the Church Herself, in her divine teaching, emerges gloriously unspotted in a history stained by human weaknesses, errors, imperfections, and sins." In the words of the great Cardinal Journet:

"All contradictions are eliminated as soon as we understand that the members of the Church do indeed sin, but they do so by their betraying the Church. The Church is thus not without sinners, but She is without sin. The Church as person is responsible for penance. She is not responsible for sins....The members of the Church themselves - laity, clerics, priests, Bishops, and Popes - who disobey the Church are responsible for their sins, but the Church as person is not responsible...It is forgotten that the Church as person is the Bride of Christ, 'Whom He has purchased with His own blood.'" (Acts 20:28).

This point is not understood by Mr. Tom White of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College. In the comments section of the previous post at this Blog, he wrote (in part):

No one at the Cohen Center has maligned anyone or anything. A reading of Hank Knight's letter will show that it is simply an invitation to discussion and hospitality. There are no statements about Pope Pius XII - any interpretation of his Papacy are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject.

In addition, I, nor anyone that I know of, have ever supported Daniel Goldhagen's "eliminationist antisemitism" theory. I hope this pulls us back to the discussion at hand. I appreciate the genuine and heartfelt passion for Holocaust studies that this blog has brought forward. Of course, self-examination of the history of Jewish-Christian relations must be at the center of this reflection. Jews and Christians, both rooted in the Tanakh, have a special relation to one another, though a difficult history.

To deny anti-Judaism within the history and tradition of the Church is to be painfully ignorant. As a Catholic myself, I have been enriched by my Church's honest confrontation with and ongoing reflection about this difficult past. This is evidenced, for example in "God's Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, September, 1988" where false teachings have been identified.

For instance, the following statement from the Guidelines is a good example: "Another misunderstanding rejected by the Second Vatican Council was the notion of collective guilt, which charged the Jewish people as a whole with responsibility for Jesus' death (cf. nos. 21-25 below, on Holy Week)." I live by the caution of Nostra Aetate that "all must take care, lest…they teach anything which is not in accord with the truth...”

Additionally, it may be helpful to reference the Church's "Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, June 24, 1985." In it, the Church emphasizes that the Church and the Jewish people are "linked together at the very level of their identity," an accurate, sensitive, and positive appreciation of Jews and Judaism "should not occupy an occasional or marginal place in Christian teaching," but be considered "essential" to Christian proclamation.

I hope this clarifies my position. It does not require me to assure you that anti-Catholicism is not at the heart of Holocaust studies. Rather, studying the Holocaust gives us great humility. In wrestling with the Holocaust I, like Jacob at the Jabbok, come away limping, yet more whole.
10:24 AM

To which I responded:


"Mr. White, I want to thank you for your comments. But I must disagree with you [even while respecting the courteous tone of your comment]. You wrote, "No one at the Cohen Center has maligned anyone or anything. A reading of Hank Knight's letter will show that it is simply an invitation to discussion and hospitality." Actually it is something more. The reference to "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies" is most unfortunate. As for Papal apologies, these must be understood properly.

In an article written for the Catholic League*, Mr. Robert P. Lockwood, the League's Director of Research, writes:

"On Sunday, March 12, 2000 Pope John Paul II made a unique and historic "request for pardon" for the sins and errors of Christians both throughout the centuries and in the present. The Holy Father saw this as the culmination of the Church’s "examination of conscience" for the Jubilee Year. The goal of such a public act of repentance is a "purification of memory."

As the Holy Father explained in his Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente the Jubilee Year should be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the Church from all forms of "errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency and slowness to act" in the past millenium. At the same time, the responsibility of Christians for the evils that exist within our own time must be acknowledged as well. The "request for pardon" is made in the understanding that "all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God, who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us."

This papal act of atonement for past sin is an intensely spiritual act, meant to seek forgiveness from God and allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith. Unfortunately, we live at a time where Truth is rarely recognized, and where the spiritual nature of this public confession made by the pope for the entire Church was misconstrued, misunderstood AND TWISTED TO MEET POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS. Particularly when events in history are raised, "the simple admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church." There have been public responses to the papal apology THAT CONFUSE REPENTANCE FOR WRONG ACTIONS WITH ACCUSATIONS OF DOCTRINAL ERROR, or make demands for apologies not required in the historical or cultural context of the events of the past.

The Papal Atonement

At the special Jubilee Mass for the first Sunday of Lent, Pope John Paul II, gave his expression of regret for the entire Church for the following:1. "Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth."The pope explained that "in certain periods of history Christians have at times given in to intolerance." He asked that we "seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself."

"Recognition of the sins which have rent the unity of the Body of Christ and wounded fraternal charity." The pope asked forgiveness for the breakdown in Christian unity and that "believers have opposed one another, becoming divided, and have mutually condemned one another and fought against one another."3. "In recalling the sufferings endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the covenant." The pope acknowledged that we are "deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer."4. "Repent of the words and attitudes caused by pride, by hatred, by the desire to dominate others, by enmity toward members of other religions and toward the weakest groups in society." Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions."5. "Offenses against...human dignity and…rights (that) have been trampled; let us pray for women, who are all too often humiliated and emarginated."

At times, the pope explained, "the equality of your sons and daughters has not been acknowledged, and Christians have been guilty of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences."6. "Especially for minors who are victims of abuse, for the poor, the alienated, the disadvantaged; let us pray for those most defenseless, the unborn killed in their mother’s womb or even exploited for experimental purposes by those who abuse the promise of biotechnology and distort the aims of science." How many times, the pope asked, "have Christians not recognized (Christ) in the hungry, the thirsty and the naked, in the persecuted, the imprisoned and in those incapable of defending themselves, particularly in the first stages of life." He asked forgiveness for "all those who have committed acts of injustice by trusting in wealth and power and showing contempt for the ‘little ones.’"

Reaction and response

For the most part, reaction to the papal request for pardon was positive, if one-sided. Most secular editorials – and commentators from various faiths and denominations – commended the Pope for acknowledging the "errors of the Roman Catholic Church over the last 2000 years." Yet, they failed to see that at the heart of these errors is the fact that Catholics have faltered when they have become caught up in the culture of their day. Failing to see the world through the eyes of faith, they were caught up in the spirit of their times. The errors that the pope acknowledges are sins that come from the culture, not from a faith lived in unity with the Gospels. Too many commentators seek to imply that the derivation of these errors is the faith itself, rather than a failure of living up to the demands of faith. These sins are the errors Christians share with all mankind that find their roots in society, history and the culture, not in the Gospels: violence in defense of belief, corrosive divisiveness, anti-Semitism, intolerance, racial, gender and ethnic discrimination, and oppression of the poor and defenseless.

The negative secular response to the papal apology can be summed up from an editorial in the March 14, 2000 New York Times. "As long as (the Church) was burdened by its failure to reckon with passed misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism, the Church could not fully heal its relations with other faiths. John Paul has now made it easier to do that. Some of the things (the pope) did not say bear note. The apology was expressed in broad terms. It was offered on behalf of the church’s ‘sons and daughters’ but not the church itself, which is considered holy.

Nor did John Paul directly address the sensitive issue of whether past popes, cardinals and clergy – not just parishioners – also erred. The pope’s apology for discrimination against women is welcome but difficult to square with his continued opposition to abortion and birth control, and to women in the priesthood. Regrettably, he made no mention of discrimination against homosexuals.

Another noted omission was the lack of a specific reference to the Holocaust…(and) the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against the Nazi genocide."These charges should be reviewed individually: *As long as it was burdened by its failure to reckon with past misdeeds committed in the name of Catholicism, the Church could not fully heal its relations with other faiths. This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the papal apology. It is also a failure to see the wider benefits to all faiths, and non-faiths. The purpose of the papal atonement for past sin is to allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith.

In the Times statement there is a direct implication of a one-sided nature to the wrongs of the past, an acceptance of an anti-Catholic interpretation of history rooted in post-Reformation and Enlightenment propaganda rather than an accurate and objective understanding of the past. Additionally, while the papal apology is certainly given without equivocation, "it is hoped that they will be carried out reciprocally, though at times prophetic gestures may call for a unilateral…initiative."5 In regard to other religions, "it would also be desirable if these acts of repentance would stimulate the members of other religions to acknowledge the faults of their own past."6

*The apology was expressed in broad terms.The Times and other commentators failed to note that the pope has specifically addressed many of the issues to which the apology referred in general. In 1982, the pope referred to the "errors of excess" in the Inquisition; the 1998 Vatican document on the Shoah made clear the moral shortcomings within Christians that contributed to the Holocaust; in 1995, the pope, in discussing the Crusades, outlined errors and expressed thanks that dialogue has replaced violence; in 1987 the pope acknowledged that Christian missionaries too often helped carry out the cultural oppression of native peoples; the pope decried in a 1995 letter the historical discrimination against women and expressed regret that "not a few" members of the Church shared in the blame.7

The Times and other commentators demanded a laundry list of apologies based on prejudicial interpretations of history. While the pope "forgives and asks forgiveness," there is no acknowledgment on the part of these commentators of the biases, conceits and hatreds that have often driven their commentaries on the Church. While the pope’s apology asks for no reciprocity, it would do well for institutions such as the Times to examine objectively their own motivations in their attacks on the Church and the historical prejudices in which they are rooted.

*(The apology) was offered on behalf of the church’s ‘sons and daughters’ but not the church itself, which is considered holy. Nor did John Paul directly address the sensitive issue of whether past popes, cardinals and clergy – not just parishioners – also erred.This is a two-fold misunderstanding. First, there is a real distinction between a theological understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ, which is holy, and its members that are sinners.

Second, the Times and other critics are making the common mistake of identifying "the Church" with the hierarchy. "Sons and daughters" of the Church refers to all baptized members of the Church, not "just parishioners." *The pope’s apology for discrimination against women is welcome but difficult to square with his continued opposition to abortion and birth control, and to women in the priesthood.The papal apology dealt with errors and faults of Christians in their actions in the past and present. These errors were most often rooted in failure to live out the demands of the Gospels in particular historical circumstances. The Times and other critics are confusing repentance for certain wrong actions in history with admissions of doctrinal error. The Times uses the papal apology as an opportunity to demand that the Church change doctrinal truths for a secular agenda. What the apology could not be, and was not intended to be, was an apology for Church doctrine. The apology that the pope did issue, however, was for any inadvertent cooperation Christians may have given that contributed to the persistence in our own time of a culture of death that allows the weak and defenseless, particularly the unborn, to be abused at the hands of the powerful. *Regrettably, he made no mention of discrimination against homosexuals.The papal apology was not meant as an endorsement of a contemporary ideological agenda. The apology makes clear that "Christians have been guilty of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences." No person should be subject to discrimination and if any in the Christian community cooperate in discrimination, they are in error. However, the Church has always taught that homosexual acts – not homosexuals – are inherently sinful. The Times implied that such teaching involves "discrimination against homosexuals." It does not.

Again, the Times demanded admission of doctrinal error and that Church teaching succumb to an ideological agenda. Such is neither the sum nor substance of the papal apology. *Another noted omission was the lack of a specific reference to the Holocaust…As the recent document on the Shoah made clear, the Holocaust was "the result of the pagan ideology of Nazism, animated by a merciless anti-Semitism that not only despised the faith of the Jewish people, but also denied their very human dignity. Nevertheless, it may be asked whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not made easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and hearts."8 That document made clear the need for repentance among Christians for anti-Semitic attitudes that contributed in any way to the Holocaust. The papal apology strongly asserts that "Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the covenant." However, it would be an unhistorical leap for the pope to assent to contemporary anti-Catholic propaganda that attempts to identify the Church with the Holocaust. It is a historical fallacy – an insult to the memory of the Holocaust – to utilize this ultimate 20th century evil as a tool against the Church and to thereby mitigate the evil that was pagan Nazism. *…(and) the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against the Nazi genocide.The alleged "failure" of Pope Pius XII "to speak out on Nazi genocide" is a faulty interpretation of both the historical reality and a papacy that saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. The actions and tactics of Pope Pius XII and the Church saved far more Jewish lives than the Allied armies, Allied governments, the Resistance, the Red Cross, other churches and other religions, or any other then-existing agency of any kind worldwide combined during the war.

The actions of Pius XII hardly need an apology.

Conclusion

The difficulty in such an unprecedented event by Pope John Paul II is that too often history is clouded with the prejudices and presumptions of those commenting and reporting on it. As evidenced in the Times editorial on the papal apology, history has often been twisted and reinterpreted for ideological purposes. What is assumed to be objective historical understanding of events is often 19th century – and 20th century – anti-Catholic propaganda that has been sanctioned over time as objectively correct. It is conventional wisdom, not historical fact. Careful and objective historical analysis – free from the prejudices of the past and present – needs to guide our understanding of the past. The Church is "not afraid of the truth that emerges from history and is ready to acknowledge mistakes whenever they have been identified, especially when they involve the respect that is owed to individuals and communities. She is inclined to mistrust generalizations that excuse or condemn various historical periods. She entrusts the investigation of the past to patient, honest, scholarly reconstruction, free from confessional or ideological prejudices, regarding both the accusations brought against her and the wrongs she has suffered."9

Pope John Paul II’s historic act of atonement is a witness to guide Catholics into the third millennium. Bigoted commentary, historical distortion, demands for doctrinal abandonment, and anti-Catholic prejudice will not detract from this unprecedented jubilee "request for pardon."

SUMMARY POINTS*

The Holy Father saw this "request for pardon" as the culmination of the Church’s "examination of conscience" for the Jubilee Year. The goal of such a public act of repentance is a "purification of memory."

*This papal act of atonement for past sin is an intensely spiritual act. It is meant to seek forgiveness from God and allow Christians to enter the new millennium better prepared to evangelize the Truth of faith.

*Particularly when events in history are raised the admission of faults committed by the sons and daughters of the Church may look like acquiescence in the face of accusations made by those who are prejudicially hostile to the Church.*There have been responses to the papal apology that make demands for apologies not required in the historical or cultural context of the events of the past.

*Many secular commentators have failed to see that at the heart of many of these errors is the fact that Christians have faltered when they have become caught up in the culture of their day.

*These sins are the errors Christians share with all mankind and find their roots in society, history and the culture, not in the Gospels.

*There is a direct implication in some commentary on the papal apology of a one-sided nature to the wrongs of the past, an acceptance of an anti-Catholic interpretation of history rooted in post-Reformation and Enlightenment propaganda rather than an accurate and objective understanding of the past.

*While the pope "forgives and asks forgiveness," there is no acknowledgment on the part of secular commentators on the biases, conceits and hatreds that have often driven their comments on the Church.

*Critics are confusing repentance for certain wrong actions with admissions of doctrinal error. What the apology could not be, and was not intended to be, was an apology for Church doctrine.

*The papal apology was not meant as an endorsement of a contemporary ideological agenda.

*It would be an unhistorical leap for the pope to assent to contemporary anti-Catholic propaganda that attempts to identify the Church with the Holocaust. It is a historical fallacy – an insult to the memory of the Holocaust – to utilize this ultimate 20th century evil as a tool against the Church and to thereby mitigate the evil that was pagan Nazism.

*The alleged "failure" of Pope Pius XII "to speak out on Nazi genocide" is a faulty interpretation of both the historical reality and a papacy that saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. The actions and tactics of Pope Pius XII and the Church saved far more Jewish lives than the Allied armies, Allied governments, the Resistance, the Red Cross, other churches and other religions, or any other existing agency of any kind worldwide combined during the war. The actions of Pius XII hardly need an apology.

*What is assumed to be objective historical understanding of events is often 19th and 20th century anti-Catholic propaganda that has been sanctioned over time as objectively correct. It is conventional wisdom, not historical fact. Careful and objective historical analysis – free from the prejudices of the past and present – needs to guide our understanding of the past.

FOOTNOTES

1Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past (December, 1999) International Theological Commission.

2Incarnationis mysterium (November, 1998) Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000

3Memory and Reconciliation (Introduction)

4Summarized and excerpted from Catholic News Service, Text Forgiveness (March 13, 2000)

5Memory and Reconciliation (6.3)

6Ibid.

7Summarized from Catholic News Service, "Mea culpa, tua culpa: Vatican hopes others inspired by apologies," John Thavis (March 10, 2000).

8Memory and Reconciliation (5.4)

9Ibid. (4.2)

As you can see, the Pope never apologized for doctrinal errors. Only for Catholics who failed to live up to Gospel demands. You wrote, "To deny anti-Judaism within the history and tradition of the Church is to be painfully ignorant." That depends upon what you mean by tradition. If by tradition you are referring to the Church's doctrinal teachings, you are mistaken. Mr. Knight's reference to "traditional forms of anti-Semitism in Church teachings or its liturgies" is gravely offensive. Such a remark DOES in fact malign the Church. Perhaps you would care to address my concerns (and others) regarding Keene State College's use of the semantic weapon- word "homophobic" to describe moral opposition to homosexuality as well as the course HOLO 254?

Thanks again Mr. White."

I would like to call upon the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies to issue an apology for Mr. Knight's offensive comments.

* http://www.catholicleague.org/rer.php?topic=Miscellaneous&id=126

And what of Mr. White's assertion that, "any interpretation of his [Pope Pius XII's] Papacy are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject"

This is also spurious. Vatican Archival evidence has already vindicated the record of Pope Pius XII: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php?id=6