"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."
Showing posts with label Robert Sungenis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Sungenis. Show all posts
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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
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
Sunday, March 22, 2009
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.
For more on E. Michael Jones go here. And for background on the anti-Semitism of Robert Sungenis go here.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
