Update on the Saint Benedict Center Cult

 

From The Union Leader:

The ultra-traditionalist Catholic organization located in Richmond, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, had their appeal of Bishop Peter Libasci’s restrictions on them rejected by Vatican officials.

“Rome chose not to consider the appeal,” said Rev. Georges de Laire, the judicial vicar and vicar for canonical affairs for the Diocese of Manchester.

The Slaves, who operate the St. Benedict Center on Fay Martin Road, were ordered to stop calling themselves a Catholic organization in January 2019 under the terms of a letter sent to the group by the diocese. See here.

The group was given an extensive list of prohibitions in the precepts letter, including a restriction against raising money for any Catholic entity, and a restriction on having any priest celebrate Mass or any of the Catholic sacraments at its compound. New Hampshire Catholics are warned to stay away from the group.

The leader of the group, Louis Villarubia, who goes by Brother Andre Marie, did not respond to a request for comment.

The group appealed the orders to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or CDF, the Vatican governing body that defends Catholic teaching. However, they missed the deadline for that appeal, according to de Laire.

“The decision from CDF says that it was rejected because it fell outside the statute of limitations,” de Laire said. “The decision holds them to the observance of the decree.”

The ruling means that the Slaves must now follow the same rules as all other Catholics, de Laire said. The dispute between the diocese and the Slaves goes back to the Slaves' founding principles. The Slaves were started by the Rev. Leonard Feeney in the 1950s. Feeney held anti-Semitic beliefs and was for a time excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

Feeney also taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. While that is the official doctrine of the church, the way the Slaves interpret that teaching has put them on the wrong side of Rome, according to letters from the CDF to Villarubia.

The group’s strict adherence to the Catholic teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” is in conflict with the instructions it received years ago from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF’s undersecretary, Monsignor Giacomo Morandi, wrote in a 2016 letter that the group’s theological position was “unacceptable,” and not subject to further discussion.

The group does not allow for the possibility that non-Catholics can be saved through the grace of God, which goes against the full teaching of the church, according to Morandi’s letter.

Villarubia, like the Slaves’ original founder, Feeney, has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks, which has garnered notoriety for the Slaves. Villarubia has called Jewish people the “worst enemy of the Church.”

The Slaves in Richmond are a splinter group that left the Still River, Mass., Slaves organization after Feeney reconciled with Rome shortly before his death. The Slaves in Massachusetts are no longer connected to the Richmond group.

Talks are now underway between de Laire and the Slaves on how they can live in compliance with the bishop's demands.

“We are now engaged in an effort to dialogue, to encourage them to observe the (2019) document,” de Laire said. “It is a complicated relationship that the diocese has with the Slaves and vice-versa.”

Since Libasci's precepts were published and the Slaves lost the right to have a priest celebrate Mass at their compound, Libasci has arranged for a priest from Nashua travel every Sunday to St. Stanislaus Church in Winchester to celebrate a Mass in in Latin using the pre-Vatican II form of the liturgy. This is at the same time that Keene's Parish of the Holy Spirit, which oversees the Winchester church, has been forced to eliminate Mass in English in Winchester because of a lack of priests.

De Laire said there is hope that the rift between the Slaves and Manchester can be mended, and Libasci remains dedicated to serving them as bishop.

“The bishop remains hopeful that a solution can be identified,” de Laire said. “The bishop is committed to the Slaves and their supporters, as they are members of the church and he owes them ministry.”

In 2009, the group’s then-leader, Brother Francis Maluf, signed a letter of obedience to then Bishop John McCormack renouncing anti-Semitism, and several articles about Jewish people were removed from the group’s website. McCormack then allowed the group to bring in a priest of good standing to celebrate Mass for them in Richmond.

Governor Deval Patrick's hatred for the common good in Massachusetts

In an address given to the Catholic Conference on Industrial Relations in Portland, Oregon on October 5, 1954, the first Bishop of the Worcester Diocese, John J. Wright, explained to those present that, "..the common good is all the heritage from the past and all the hope for the future which good men share under God. Common to many, it is therefore public; perfective of the individual, it remains somehow personal. It calls the individual out of himself to share things with the general community, but it puts the resources of the general community at the service of the things closest to the personality of the individual. That is what Cicero meant when he defined the common good, the res publica, in terms of a nation's altars and hearths, of the spiritual and domestic values which center about these and which serve personality: 'in aris et focis est res publica.' It was out of this concept of the common good that our forefathers derived their notion of the great object of the State's existence. Hence their fine phrase the common weal, a phrase perpetuated in the name by which they designated this civil community, not by the cold collective name so dear to the totalitarian, The State, nor with any name of special interest or partisan emphasis as The Duchy or The Realm, but The Commonwealth, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is the concept behind warm words like mutual in the preambles of our national and state Constitutions, as that of my own state which provides 'that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.'...The common good: it is the mutual bond of all who love the good, the true, and the beautiful; who seek good things, not evil; who seek the private good of persons and the collective good of the State, but the good of both in and under and through the Supreme Good, which is God. It is the good which God gives us all in order to keep us together, as opposed to the good that He gives us each to keep to ourselves. It is the good before which, on due occasion, both individual and State are obliged to bow: the common good...


Such an appreciation of the common good which unites, as against - or, rather, as above all particular or factional or partisan goods which divide - would make possible the Vital Center for which certain political philosophers are pleading; a Vital Center which can exist only when honorable moderates of Right and Left prefer working with each other in behalf of the common good to working with extremists of their own respective camps, extremists who seek only the particular good after which their side aspires..."

Governor Deval Patrick, an extremist who is fully supportive of the radical homosexual agenda, has forgotten this truth.  He has set himself once again against the common good.  Mass Resistance is reporting that, "Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has nominated a well-known lesbian judge, Barbara Lenk, to the Supreme Judicial Court. Lenk is currently an appellate court judge. She was appointed to the Superior Court by Bill Weld in 1993 and elevated to the appellate court by Weld in 1995. This also appears to be part of a recent national push to appoint openly homosexual judges. Lenk's confirmation hearing before the Governor's Council will be next Wednesday, April 27 at the State House...The nomination has been celebrated by the liberal establishment as well as the homosexual movement in Massachusetts. But Lenk's activities - as a self-identified lesbian, 'married' to another woman, with two children, who clearly supports the homosexual movement (as well as other baggage) - have frightened and outraged conservatives...Lenk's apparent support for a disgusting homosexual-themed anti-Semitic play presented in Concord has caused big concern. The play, "Falsettos," is a truly sickening piece of work. It is a homosexual love story and obscenely mocks Jewish ethnicity and denigrates traditional Judaism, presented in a crude and vulgar manner. The play also encourages promiscuous homosexual sex." Full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).



And this is precisely what is occurring in Massachusetts.  Transcendent truth has been relegated to the dustbin and the force of power is taking over.  The Dictatorship of Relativism is metastasizing as a spiritual cancer.  The Culture of Death will stop at nothing in its demonic agenda to redefine marriage and family life while casting aside God and His Commandments as well as the tenets of Natural Law.  And this moral revolution to impose the radical homosexual agenda is being supported by many in the media.  See here for example.

Two quotes regarding anti-Semitism...

"Mark well, we call Abraham our Patriarch, our ancestor. Anti-Semitism is irreconcilable with this lofty thought....Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually, we are all Semites."

-Pope Pius XI to Belgian Pilgrims, September 6, 1938.

"...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there."

Fr. Brian Harrison responds...

Father Brian Harrison left two comments at this Blog which I will address in this post. In his first comment, he writes, "Please allow me to respond to these attacks. I had never read till now the February 2004 article by E. Michael Jones that was quoted in 'Catalyst,' and it is certainly not true to say that I do not find his theological position, as quoted here, 'problematic.'"

Actually, my Blog post did not constitute an "attack" on Father Harrison. But since Father has portrayed himself as some sort of "authority" on E. Michael Jones and has defended him while asserting that, "Mike Jones principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches," it's fair to say that he apparently does not find E. Michael Jones' views to be problematic. This because Jones' views have been well-documented.

Father Harrison acknowledges this in his first comment writing, "...I have often expressed to Jones and Sungenis my concern and disapproval about certain things they have said about Jews, especially anything that tends to come across as a sweeping negative generalization about that people as a whole." And what of Jones' belief that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been "major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing" Christian values and Catholic and Orthodox Churches? That sure comes across as "a sweeping negative generalization" about the Jewish people to me.

He then writes, "As regards the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, I had no knowledge of anything its spokespersons had ever said on Jewish issues when I spoke at their conference (on a quite different topic) back in August 2007. If indeed SBC representatives have made statements accusing 'the Jewish People' as such of 'corrupting' influences, conspiracies, or whatever, then I totally repudiate such views." But "Brother" Andre Marie of the SBC has said that the Jewish People undermine public morals and Douglas Bersaw has denied the Holocaust, referring to it as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan." If Father Harrison is really opposed to such views, then why is he part of the SBC's 2009 "Catholic America Tour"? See here. And if Father is really opposed to such conspiracy theories, why has he defended the conspiracy theories of E. Michael Jones which portray "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" as being behind 2,000 years of plots to overthrow the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Christian values?

Father Harrison concludes his first comment writing, "...I accept fully the teachings of Vatican Council II about the Jewish people and, with the Church, I condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism. However, since the Council did not attempt [to] define what precise views, expressions and attitudes are to count as being 'anti-Semitic,' there is clearly a certain 'grey area' there. That should be a matter of calm and respectful debate among Catholics, not harsh mutual condemnations."

This is what Vatican II said, "...in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (Nostra Aetate, No. 4). Anti-Semitism expresses itself in many and varied ways. For example, through denial of the Holocaust or "sweeping negative generalizations" such as those issued by SBC representatives or E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis.

In his second comment, Father Harrison writes, "Once again Mr. Melanson, I ask space to defend myself - this time from the grave charge of unorthodoxy that you level against me."

Apparently Father has difficulty being honest. Something he should work on this Lent. In the post he refers to, I wrote, "Followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney have initiated a discussion thread at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website with an article written by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., and entitled "Can an 'implicit faith' in Christ be sufficient for salvation?...The answer is: yes." I then proceeded to present the Magisterial teaching of the Church relative to the subject and added, "Theologians such as Fr. Brian Harrison are not 'pastors' within the Church. They have not been given the mission from the Lord Jesus to instruct the faithful in 'all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith' (Dei Verbum, No. 8). This mission has been entrusted exclusively to the Magisterium of the Church.." (See here).

If Father Harrison has a problem with this statement, perhaps it is because he considers himself to be some sort of ersatz Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If this is the case, I submit that dishonesty isn't the only thing he should work on this Lent.

Related reading: Robert Sungenis vs. Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades: A Chronology

Additional reading: E. Michael Jones and the Jews

And speaking of Father Brian Harrison....

Fr. Brian Harrison, in a letter defending Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones from charges of anti-Semitism (the entire text may be found here), writes: "Now, Mike Jones' principal 'crime' has been to publish extensive historical studies arguing that Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers have again and again been major players in the various revolutionary movements of the last two millennia aimed at preventing, subverting and overthrowing the dominance in European civilization of Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

But while Father Harrison doesn't view E. Michael Jones' views as problematic, others would disagree. For example, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights had this to say in the July-August 2004 edition of The Catalyst:

PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THEOLOGY

Recently, an article by E. Michael Jones in the February 2004 edition of his magazine, Culture Wars, came to our attention. What begins as a review of Roy Schoeman's book, Salvation Is From the Jews, ends up as an anti-Semitic rant playing fast and loose with Catholic theology. It should be unequivocally condemned.

The first important point to note is that there is nothing in Roy Shoeman's book that would lead one to Jones's conclusions; Schoeman is a Jewish convert to Catholicism, and his book, published by the mainstream Ignatius Press, has won praise from reliably level-headed Catholics. The problem lies with Jones, who uses his review of the book to engage in a freewheeling polemic against Jews.

At the outset, Jones's history is skewed: "The overwhelming majority of Jews didn't just ignore Christ, they actively sought his death." While it is undeniable that some Jews did seek Christ's death, declaring that an "overwhelming majority" did is just unwarranted. This, however, is not the worst of what Jones has to say.

According to Revelation 3:9, Jones says, Jews who do not accept Christ are the "synagogue of Satan." "In other words, the group which was called by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, rejected the Messiah and in doing that, became over the course of the ensuing centuries, a group that defined itself as anti-Christian." Not believing Christ was the Messiah does not entail defining oneself as anti-Christian; that assumes that Jews see so little of value in their own religion that they must define themselves against Christians. Furthermore, it paints Jews with a broad brush, ignoring regional differences as well as individual traits. That is the very definition of prejudice.

Jones goes on: "The Jews who reject Christ now prepare the way for the coming of the anti-Christ every bit as much as the faithful Jews prepared the way for the coming of the real Christ. The Jews, because of their favored position and because of their rejection of Christ, now have a special role to play in the mystery of iniquity and its history on earth." This sounds like dispensationalist theology, an umbrella term for various Protestant systems of biblical interpretation that, among other things, severely separates God's plan for the Jews from His plan for the community of believers. It posits that Jesus failed in His mission to the Jews, and the Church was formed more or less as a "Plan B." It is the basis for the Left Behind series of novels, and is anything but Catholic. Unaccountably, Jones faults the Catholic Schoeman for not mentioning any of this.

See Jones's next statement: "If salvation comes from the Jews who prepared the way for Christ and accepted him when he came, what comes from the Jews who rejected Christ? The answer is clear: what comes from this group is the opposite of salvation, namely, the work of Satan culminating in the arrival of the Antichrist." Jones's conclusion just does not follow from his premises. Again, Jones is attempting to pass off dispensationalism as Catholic doctrine. Jones has the gall to add, "The answer is not only clear; there is no other possible answer to this question."

Jones claims that through much of Christian history, "What happened was precisely the Jewish participation in iniquity which their pertinacious and ongoing rejection of Christ made a necessity." He adds that "the logic is inescapable." Clearly, logic is not Jones's strong suit. Is Jones asserting that there can be no righteous non-Christians? No, he is saying something even more ridiculous: that there is something inherent in the Jewish people that makes them unique instruments of evil. If that is not anti-Semitism, then nothing is. He even outrageously blames the Jews themselves for the Holocaust and pogroms: "Messianic politics has been a recipe for disaster… and the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews was a reaction to Jewish Messianism (in the form of Bolshevism) every bit as much as the Chmielnicki pogroms flowed from the excesses of the Jewish tax farmers in the Ukraine."

Jones takes on the tone of a conspiracy theorist, noting "the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia and large segments of Eastern Europe, which in turn set up the mechanism of reaction against that reign of terror, namely, National Socialism under Hitler. That in turn led to the creation of the state of Israel, and the rise to power of the Jewish media elites in the United States, which in turn led, after over 50 years of antagonizing Islam to 9/11 and the current spate of never-ending wars in the Middle East." In keeping with the dispensationalist tendency to interpret prophecy in terms of current events, Jones comments, "So it looks more and more like Armageddon every day now. The outline of human history seems to be taking on a more and more biblical configuration with each passing day…." In the context of "Paul Wolfowitz's plan to march through the middle east; George Bush's recent over the top messianic speeches in England, or Ariel Sharon showing up at the Temple Mount and inaugurating the intifada," Jones concludes, "The contemporary Synagogue of Satan, whether in America or Israel, now poses the greatest threat to world peace."

The Catholic League condemns Jones's anti-Semitism and repudiates his efforts to justify it in the name of Catholic theology. One thing is clear: there are many choice terms one can use to describe Jones's view of salvation history; "Catholic" is not one of them.

Apparently Father Harrison doesn't see it that way. For him, there is absolutely nothing problematic about arguing that "Jewish activists, intellectuals and financiers" have been plotting for 2,000 years to prevent, subvert and overthrow Christian values and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Small wonder he appeared recently at the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire. I'm sure he found a hearty welcome there. After all, it was Louis Villarrubia ("Brother" Andre Marie) who suggested that the Jewish People undermine public morality. And it was Douglas Bersaw ("Brother" Anthony Mary) who referred to the Holocaust as a "fraud" and the Jewish People as the "Synagogue of Satan."

For more on E. Michael Jones go here. And for background on the anti-Semitism of Robert Sungenis go here.

What's going on at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website?

Readers of this Blog are already aware of my concerns regarding the HCCNS website and the anti-Semitism which has been promoted at that forum from a previous post. It would appear that things haven't changed much at that forum. Mr. John Ansley initiated a thread entitled "What is happening here?" in which he wrote: "Monsignor Ernest Jouin*, whose work is being promoted at this site by a Feeneyite/anti-Semite follower of Philip Lawler, was a virulently anti-Semitic priest who served as the channel from Russia to France of the highly anti-Semitic propaganda work titled "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion**." He then posted a book review which confirmed his allegations regarding the late Mgsr. Jouin.

Now, Mr. Ansley was merely posing a question: "What is happening here?" However, he received a terse response from Richard B (a Catholic apologist who comments at the HCCNS website). Richard B wrote: "Ever since my association with HCCNS website, it played host to anyone who wanted to post here within specific parameters. Because posters who are favorable to 'Feeneyism' as you put it, or who object to object to 'Feenyism' does not make HCCNS website a party to those posters. I believe your inference does an injustice to this site..."

But Mr. Ansley wasn't inferring anything about the HCCNS website in general. He was merely asking what is going on at that forum. Why? Because, the masthead of this discussion site states that: "HCCNS reserves the right to delete any post it deems inappropriate including, but not limited to, those it feels are vulgar, hostile or a misuse of the intent of this forum."

Let's examine this statement very carefully. Vulgar. Does this not include comments which promote anti-Semitism? Hostile. Isn't anti-Semitism considered "hostile" at the HCCNS website? Gee, you would think so. A misuse of the intent of this forum. Is anti-Semitism the intent of the forum? If not, why is Richard B being so defensive at Mr. Ansley's question?

I don't think Mr. Ansley was looking to generalize or to infer that everyone who comments at the HCCNS website is anti-Semitic. He simply asked a question: "What is happening here?" And judging by the terse response he received, I would say he might have hit a nerve. We should ask ourselves: what exactly are the "specific parameters" according to Richard B? Do these "specific parameters" exclude anti-Semitism? And if not, why not?

Other valid questions: why has Richard B responded to Mr. Ansley with an accusatory tone (suggesting that he was inferring something about the HCCNS website in general or every individual who posts there); and why is he seemingly unconcerned with expressions of anti-Semitism?

* Previous post on Monsignor Ernest Jouin here.

** More on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion here.

Vatican warns of growing Christianophobia

According to Reuters in an article which may be found here, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Vatican's foreign minister, warned that Christianophobia* is a growing problem around the world and it must be fought with the same determination as anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. The Archbishop made his remarks in the wake of attacks against Christians throughout India which have left at least 13 dead this past week.

Readers of this Blog will recall how I called upon Keene State College to issue an apology for an offensive remark against the Catholic Church made by Mr. Henry Knight, the Director of the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies. See here.

Archbishop Mamberti is right. Christianophobia is indeed a growing problem. I have received numerous hateful comments at this Blog as well as emails because of my opposition to homosexuality, an opposition which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law. This even though I insist (with the Church) that homosexual persons must be treated with respect and compassion.

Hatred comes in many forms, in many disguises. And sincere Christians will always oppose such hatred. No matter which face it happens to be wearing.

Related reading, priest describes horror of anti-Christian attacks in India: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804430.htm

And numerous Catholic schools close to protest the anti-Christian attacks:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=13089&size=A

And for more on the Cohen Center controversy, see here.

* The "Europe for Christ" network has launched a website from Vienna to explain what Christianophobia is and to describe how Europeans have experienced it. The website:

http://www.christianophobia.eu

What's going on at Wikipedia?

I received an email from Mr. Roger Vaste this morning which read:


I just wrote this to an Administrator at Wikipedia where I have attempted to contribute to the biography on Father Feeney. Each time I added my editorial comment, it was promptly deleted by a supporter of Father Feeney. Now I have been banned from participation in the editorial process virtually ensuring that historical revisionism will rule the day when it comes to Leonard Feeney and his hate-filled anti-Semitic legacy.

Here is my response to the Administrator who banned me:

I am saddened to see that you have banned me from participation in the Wikipedia editorial process and have decided to cater to the anti-Semitic agenda of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire which has absolutely no relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.

Father Feeney was popularly known as "The Hate Priest." By removing all reference to this hate-filled legacy within his biography, you do a profound disservice to the wider community and fail to remain objective.

The Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire has engaged in Holocaust denial and has issued extremely virulent and hate-filled attacks against the Jewish People. For example, "Brother" Anthony Mary (aka Douglas Bersaw) has referred to them as the "Synagogue of Satan" and "Brother" Andre Marie (aka Louis Villarrubia) has said that the Jewish People have a "tendency to undermine public morals."

Since you are determined to whitewash the hateful legacy of Father Feeney and many of his followers, I will be reporting you and Wikipedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL.

Good day,
Roger Vaste
rvaste@yahoo.com


Related reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/10/im-not-historian.html

And: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/02/still-no-answer-from-saint-benedict.html

And: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/04/real-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal.html

On a related note, is there a growing anti-Semitic movement in the Monadnock area of New Hampshire? Mr. Russell Provost has already documented at his Blog (http://sbcwatch.blogspot.com) the fact that several hate groups (which are known for their anti-Semitism and belief in "white supremacy") are located in Cheshire County. In an article published in The Union Leader, which may be found here, authorities speculate as to whether or not anti-Semitic literature left throughout the town of Rindge, New Hampshire is the work of an organized anti-Semitic organization or movement.

I'll say it again: When is the State of New Hampshire going to treat anti-Semitism within its borders with the seriousness it deserves?