Jacob Michael (from CAI) writes in my comments box way down below
Jacob is the brand spanking new Catholic with the oil of chrism still wet on his brow who has dubbed himself competent to correct Holy Church on the inferiority of the Paul VI Mass, to defend cutting and pasting Nazi literature in order to bash Jews and to explain why everybody’s wrong and Bob Sungenis alone is right to publish twaddle about Roosevelt’s Jewish blood, the Jewish approval of infant rape, the non-rotation of the earth, the “mere propaganda” of six million dead in the Holocaust and many other unique insights.
Mark, what exactly are you saying?
“I didn’t ‘defend the Talmud.’”
You say you “didn’t” (past tense) defend the Tamud, but I notice you managed to not land on either side of the issue in the present tense. DO you defend it? Or DO you reject it as anti-Christian?
“Just an aside: read Ferrara’s screed. Then read it again. Taste it. Contemplate the personality of the person who wrote it. Then say to yourself: ‘Here’s a happy man. I want to be just like him! Wow! I sure can see the love of Christ shining out of him!’”
Is that the standard you wish to be judged by, Mark? Because I have a few of your words to me that would easily fall under your own condemnation.
First, a word to my contestants. I’m afraid that Jake’s last paragraph doesn’t quite cut the mustard in the “When Will CAI Expose Shea for the Evil Liberal He Really is?” contest. Until the shocking revelation goes up on the CAI website, mere threats to reveal the damning truth about me don’t count.
As to Jake’s question: That’s right. I didn’t “defend the Talmud”. That’s because, like Bob, I don’t know anything about it. I defended reasonably decent methods of research, which for a sophomore in high school, much less a “Ph.D. (cand.)”, include not cutting and pasting the most damning swill you can possibly find from sources absolutely hostile to Jews without a critical thought in your head and then studiously ignoring the possibility that you might not know what you are talking about. The fact that Bob could even cut and paste a Nazi pamphlet and only later figure out that his source was a Nazi (and then defend it!) is clear proof that Bob wasn’t looking to learn a bloody thing about the Talmud. He was looking for ammo, not light.
Your strange demand that I “reject” the Talmud is like asking me to “reject” everything that Christopher Hitchens or the Encyclopedia Brittanica have to say. Not being an expert in Talmud (any more than Bob is), I generally am inclined to believe that there are (duh!) going to be some insulting things said about Christian belief in a massive thousand year old collection of Jewish books that is basically a collection of arguments and commentaries from rabbis. What would you expect? In the same way, Hitchens has some ugly things to say about Christians. Still (hold on to your hat) I find Hitchens and Orwell valuable anyway. And, I suppose, if I ever got round to reading Talmud (not terribly likely anytime soon), I’d find some things of interest there too without ever feeling the need to convert to Judaism, much less rape a baby or blaspheme Christ. To “reject” it wholesale as you demand is therefore about as stupid as “rejecting” the works of H.G. Wells or George Orwell since they too have unkind things to say about my faith. My point is not that Talmud (about which, I reiterate, neither you nor I know squat) is perfect, nor even that it does not contain certain statements inimical to Christians (though Bob’s done a pathetic job of making that case). It is that one can sort out such statements without having to “reject” the Talmud, and without resorting to bashing the Pope, smearing Jews, threatening people who cross you, and denying the Holocaust.
So long as you continue to agitate for such looniness, while breathing out threats against critics and issuing cowardly and preposterous edicts forbidding anybody to quote the Jew-bashing crap you post and defend, you will remain permanently marginalized as the quacks you’ve chosen to be. Enjoy the company you’ve chosen to keep, Jake. You shall find them most disagreeable people whose fearful bitterness toward you (are you really pure enough?) will only be tempered by periodic eruptions of bile toward normal orthodox Catholics who haven’t fallen into the fever swamps of Lidless Eye Reactionary Dissent. Think of this blog entry when Sungenis, or Ferrara, or Derksen, or one of the other Lidless Eyes decides that you or each other are not ritually pure enough to make the grade of True Catholicism[TM].
I hope and pray that you all come to your senses and return to the Church.