GUEST COMMENTARY: The Vatican’s strong defense of the Jews

Print More

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) The head of a schismatic traditionalists recently labeled Jews ``enemies of the Church.'' And while that statement could have sparked an interfaith crisis, it's instead motivated Catholic leaders to directly repudiate him with strongly worded pledges of friendship with Jews.

  • Ted
  • Pingback: GUEST COMMENTARY: The Vatican's strong defense of the Jews - Religion News Service | Jews TorahJews Torah()

  • It is false and malicious to state that SSPX is a schismatic Roman Catholic sect. Please check your facts before publishing your report. Thank you.

  • Dr R J BERRY

    From top to bottom this pathetic excuse for a piece of informative journalism is riddled with (wilful?) inaccuracies and betrays a merely superficial understanding both of recent Church history and of the politics of the Vatican.

    The Fraternity of St Pius X is not ‘a sect’ of the Catholic Church – its Founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, had it erected as a body to hold and teach authentic Catholic Doctrine. Until recently, it has unarguably done just that.

    Bishop Richard Williamson did not say six million Jews had not died during the period generally referred to as ‘The Holocaust’. He said he did not believe that six million Jews had been gassed and, as all know and recognise, the Nazis did their work in many ways that did not include gassing. Shooting, working and starving people – Jews included – to death is no less terrible than gassing them. Bishop Williamson confined his comments to murder by gassing, in gas chambers. Perhaps a little objective analysis of the Bishop’s precise words would be welcome, unless we simply wish to pillory him for what he did NOT say….

    Bishop Fellay – currently Superior General of the SSPX is a Vatican lickspittle who not at all cordially detests Bishop Williamson who is his senior in the Episcopate and who intellectual probity and prowess leave Bishop Fellay eating dust. It is for this reason and also because Bishop Williamson will not consent to the perfidious sell-out of the SSPX Founder’s principles in exchange for a mess of unorthodox or plainly heretical Vatican potage. Bishop Fellay most ardently desires uniting himself to Benedict XVI and his coteries of neo-Protestants who serve him. Anyone who really thinks that Bishop Fellay cast Bishop Williamson out of the SSPX because of the brou-ha-ha over an inaccurately reported comment on a piece of secular history concerning the Jews is either naive or a knave. Now, Bishop Fellay is not naive, I am sure. The jury is still out on his being a knave, though. Bishop Fellay wants a metre or two of scarlet silk and a nice scarlet Biretta and skull-cap. The price is even now clear – the betrayal of Catholic Doctrine, most of which does not directly concern the Jews.

    Your writers (of this piece, at least) are either woefully ignorant of the reality of Church affairs or they have an agenda that they seek to promote even if that be at the cost of the Truth. If your readers really want to know the true facts then I am willing to counter the falsehoods and inaccuracies of this article, line by line. I know nothing will come of my offer the better to enlighten you and correct your errors and I suspect this will be so truly because you have no genuine interest in the Truth – and because you care less for the Truth than you would ever wish us to know.

  • Te Deum

    Well written Dr. RJ Berry.

  • Pingback: Stories I’ve Found, 2/1/2013 « homiliesandstraythoughts()

  • Jae

    Though I mostly agree with Dr. Berry except when he said, “plainly heretical Vatican (2)”.

    The abuses were the result of free and deliberate acts of men with modernist agendas and NOT in any way related to the Teachings of a duly and solemnly ratified Council of V2.

    Don’t tell us about the “ambiguous” nature of some Documents because it’s easily remediable, if the text is clear, obey it, if some texts are not clear whether they say X or Y, then follow the one in conformance with the light of Tradition. Period. The reason is simple, the Holy Bible is ambiguous too on subjects of Infusion by Grace, Mariology, Justification, Indulgences etc. but here’s the clincher, we don’t blame the Holy Bible for the abuses and the rise of Martin Luther (nowadays, the modernists), right?

    Also please don’t tell us V2 was just pastoral and non-Dogmatic Council so therefore could be rejected or make fun of, well, are you aware that there were Councils from the past that are pastoral in nature too? Do we the right to refuse them?

    By making private judgment and interpretations of what the Scripture and Tradition truly says, we are putting ourselves as the alternate magisterium.

    Obedience is the key. Nobody would have faith (Doctrines of the Church) if one doesn’t accept (obedience) it in the first place, right? Without obedience there is no faith. So the “blind obedience” charge of the SSPX is unwarranted or should we say obedience according to ones’s own interpretation of tradition?