FOX: Our First Line of Defense Against Pope Francis

Well, apparently the ipsi dixit of Rush Limbaugh is percolating through the Rightwingosphere. FOX News has decided to weigh in on the clear and present danger of Pope Francis’ “pure Marxism” with just about the strongest bull (so to speak) of excommunication it could by comparing him to the one who (in the FOXiverse) occupies the Throne of Hell itself:

Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us

So FOX, being the quality news organ it is, and swimming in money, must have gotten, like a serious type Catholic thinker on theology and economics to write this penetrating analysis, right? I mean, this is golden opportunity to tap into some heavy talent to analyze and critique the pope, if critique they think he needs,no? Oh, don’t you know it! They could have gotten Fr. Robert Barron. They might have, if they were interested in what the Catholic Right is fretting about, have gotten somebody from the Acton Institute. They could have contacted John Allen, Jr. But instead, they got none other than Adam Shaw! *The* Adam Shaw!!

Okay. So *some* of you may be wondering, “Who is Adam Shaw?” None other than a fairly D list video game reviewer, that’s who! Who better to gin up a well-informed mob against the Komminniss Pope and his Obamaesque agenda of damn Komminnisism?

First, Limbaugh, now this. Those guys are really starting to panic. If Francis keeps this up, they may actually have to attempt the novelty of thinking.

Sign of contradiction indeed.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    Oh, I’m waiting breathlessly for O’Reilly and Hannity to put their jen-oo-whine Catholic opinions into the pot. That pope obviously needs Hannitized in the No-Spin Zone to straighten him out.

  • Adam Shaw

    D List?? I think I’m at LEAST a C!! ;-)

    • HornOrSilk

      I place you on the F list myself.

      But Mark’s political correctness has let you pass.

    • http://www.parafool.com/ victor

      You were spot-on about the Legend of Zelda so I’m willing to give you at least one free pass for anything you might write :-)

      • Adam Shaw

        Yeh Zelda’s epic… I appreciate the free pass! :-)

    • chezami

      Seriously, dude. What in *hell* were you thinking? Your piece is an embarrassment. Watch this and learn to think like a Catholic and not a shill for the Thing that Used to be Conservatism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8ZqVLY9V8

      • Adam Shaw

        Sorry, but I went with the whole ‘he’s being misinterpreted’ thing for a while, and I REALLY REALLY hope I’m wrong, and he surprises everyone – but I just strongly disagree with his approach. He’s a pope thinks we got everything right in the 60′s and 70′s. I think we got everything wrong in the 60′s and 70′s. It is ok to disagree with the Pope and still be an obedient Catholic….

        • HornOrSilk

          No, the problem is you do not know Catholicism. You confuse political ideologies for Catholicism, and when the Pope doesn’t follow your ideology, you lose it. The other problem is that the things you are complaining about were things Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and many others before them said. They were not promoters of the American right-wing ideology, and indeed, spoke out against it all the time. Oh, and they were popular, and people like you often said they were being misinterpreted whenever they spoke out against your hobby horse.

          Nonetheless, the Pope is Catholic, speaks as a Catholic, looks to Christ. You would do well to follow.

          • Adam Shaw

            You don’t know anything about me! I’m not even an American! Also to CK, you say its uncharitable to compare him to Obama – that says more about your view of Obama than my view of Francis,…

            • chezami

              Yeah. I’m sure “God help us” was intended as a total compliment.

              • orual’s kindred

                I know of a film that had ‘God help us’ as a subtitle. It was about a massacre.

            • HornOrSilk

              Well, I know you write for Fox News, and you sold your faith out for a post on their website.

            • Paxton Reis

              “He’s a pope thinks we got everything right in the 60′s and 70′s.”

              But really, what do you know about the pope beyond the headlines? Dig deep Adam, dig deep.

            • Dan C

              If you think he is left, you really never read what Bemedict wrote. Start with the hippy dippy “God is Love,” move through “Spe Salvi,” and then end with “Caritas in Veritate.” it will make you realize how much these popes are alike.

            • James Scott

              I’m a Fan of Foxnews & while I think everyone including Mark’s attack on Fox is shortsighted and unjust they are not quite as shortsighted or unjust as your slimy attack on the Holy Father. Hope those 30 pieces of silver where worth it chum.

              Dan is right there is little difference between Benedict & JP2 & Francis on these matters.

              But if you insist on being the right wing version of Tamara Holder & just as incurious there is little I can do for you chief.

        • ck

          I think it is right to criticize Pope Francis on some of his political and economic views, however, it is uncharitable and inaccurate to compare him to Obama and blasphemously ask for God’s help from this Pope. For a more well reasoned and respectful economic criticism of Francis’ recent document, see Samuel Gregg.

          http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

          Read Gregg’s approach a number of times and learn how to criticize the Pope with some respect.

          • Pavel Chichikov

            I can’t get to it without going through ads. I never read pop up or pop in ads.

        • Jared Clark

          I’m going to have to insist that you stop insulting the holy father. He does not idealize the 60s; he is not, in any way, comparable to the president. He is the holy father of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and he deserves more than be insulted for the sin of not idealizing greed.

        • chezami

          This sort of passive aggressive “He’s being misinterpreted (but he’s Obama, God help us, knowwhutI’msayin?) is bullshit of the highest order. Just come out and admit that in a choice between Church teaching and your ideology, you choose to serve the ideology and you will let yourself by used by your corporate masters at FOX to be a mouthpiece of dissent in exactly the same way that Catholic for a Free Choice will serve their ideological masters. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver.

        • chezami

          I doubt he thinks we got he Dirty War and the crushing of the poor in his country right in the 70s. That could have something to do with his nonFOX perspective on things. As to your claim, I’d love to see some actual documentation instead of a regurgitation of Trad culture war talking points.

          • Stu

            “…regurgitation of Trad culture war talking points”
            —————–
            Is the author even a so-called “Trad”? Must everything boil down to tribalism?

            • chezami

              The invocation of “the 60s and th 70s” is pure Reactionary rhetoric. He means dismiss Francis as a Kumbaya nitwit. So yeah, Trad culture war talking points.

              • Stu

                BS.

                You overplay your connecting of the dots as much as he has. So, in an effort to counter his “dismissing Francis as a Kumbaya nitwit”, you dismiss him as your part of what see as the bogeyman tribe.

                • Dave P.

                  Mark:

                  In this instance, I think citing the attacks on the Pope as “Trad culture war talking points ” might be a bit unfair. You of all people would probably know that there is a significant Distributist faction within Traditional Catholicism, not to mention those who are familiar with what Leo XIII and Pius XI have cited in their respective encyclicals. Personally, I would call it “Randian talking points” or “American neocon talking points.” That would be a more accurate assessment, as the modern neocon movement has a total abhorrence for the culture of the 60′s and 70′s.

        • Stu

          I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion even while taking issue with some of his rhetoric. I would imagine he think we have gotten much wrong throughout the ages including those decades.

          I think much more telling is his criticism of “adolescent progressivism”.

        • James Scott

          >Sorry, but I went with the whole ‘he’s being misinterpreted’ thing for a while, and I REALLY REALLY hope I’m wrong……

          Translation I am too stupid to answer Fr. Barron or own my mistakes or stop seeing things threw my strict Socialism vs Capitalism meme and learn something about Catholic Social teaching or moral teaching.

    • Jason Hall

      Kudos to you for diving in here, but your whole premise appears to be that there are only two settings: all-out culture warrior all the time, or heterodox lovey-dovey squishy bad catechetical 60s and 70s. The pope seems to be pretty clearly calling us beyond those old tired fights and reconnecting with the One Whom it is all about, and sharing Him, not an ideology.

    • http://www.godandthemachine.com/ Thomas L. McDonald

      I repeat here what I said on the Fox post, which is that this is way out of line, Adam. As both a conservative and a Catholic, I understand the discomfort some have with his language so far, but this was not balanced at all. It rehashes old news and forces the Church into a political left/right split that ill suits it. You’re a better writer than this. I know the fire and brimstone drives the page hits, but it doesn’t serve the Body of Christ.

      As far as the skepticism about capitalism goes, that’s baked right in the cake. See also: Russell Kirk, GK Chesterton, and Rerum Novarum. Just because capitalism can be effective doesn’t mean it’s beyond critique. It certainly wasn’t for Benedict in Deus Caritas Est.

  • Meggan

    Mr Shaw wrote, “Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage…” I wish people would stop saying that. Pope Francis did. not. say. that. Aargh.

    • Jared Clark

      Noteless, unrecorded interview?

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      People jumped through a lot of hoops to make something similar to that more palatable.

  • Edgewise
  • Illinidiva

    Amusing thing… Fox’s former Rome correspondent is Greg Burke, who know works at the Vatican and is partially responsible for the news coverage Francis is receiving.

  • Paxton Reis

    “But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church,
    and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no
    wonder the New York Times is in love.

    “Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America,
    Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the
    Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s
    sensibilities.”

    Blah, not much substance in these statements.

    Pope Francis is not stating passivity, give what he is stating a try. Mr. Shaw’s
    criticism is simplistic, but par for the course with the sound-bite characteristics of cable news networks.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Bogoroditsa Devo, Raduicya!

    • Pavel Chichikov

      Alphabet mix-up. Raduisya.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    If you can affirm that Jesus of Nazareth, true God and true man, rose in the flesh from the dead, you are my brother or sister in Christ.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Four line stanzas:

    BEHOLD THE BRIDEGROOM

    Behold, the Bridegroom comes at midnight

    But will the door be sealed?

    The windows dark, no light within

    No life within revealed

    How silent is our wedding house,

    The rooms on this black night,

    Give me my robe of baptism

    Whiter than bones are white

    The Bridegroom comes to His wedding feast

    People, let us dress

    In garments of the festival,

    The robes of the wedding guest

    Furnish us with scented wax

    Gathered by the angels

    From blossoms of God’s paradise

    And with these mold the candles

    Let us sweep the floors of sin

    Shame and grief sweep out,

    Hang the rafters with our joy

    Away the grime of doubt

    Behold, the Bridegroom comes at last

    The doors be opened wide

    To all who loved Him in this life

    Who have not Christ denied

    But those who would come in at last

    He will at last admit

    Even as the midnight strikes

    And even these will sit

    Pavel

    December
    2, 2013

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Fr. Barron is right, and right on.

  • Paxton Reis

    In light of Fr. Barron’s video commentary reflecting on the Pope’s exhortation on the “positive urgency of the Good News”, it was a silly waste of my time to spend a moment reading the article by Mr. Shaw.

    Yes, the resurrection is startling Good News, and arranging my life around it means not to spend time on commentary from cable news.

    • Pavel Chichikov

      We stopped watching TV years ago.

      • Paxton Reis

        Yes, we did too. It started with the TV breaking down while I was on an overseas business trip. When I returned home, my said not too replace it as the home was quieter without it. Our kids don’t miss it and we limit their on-line time.

        • Pavel Chichikov

          We recently spent some time with elderly relatives, and were horrified by how much time they spent watching TV, and the low grade of the material that was on. I think the country is being poisoned by it.

  • Stu

    “In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.”

    ————–
    Adam,

    I would submit that maybe you are reading it through the binary lens of capitalism or socialism that society has become accustomed to accepting over the last century. But ultimately, both of these systems lead to the same thing which with control of the markets by minority which at this point has become a cabal of Big Government and Big Business.

    Now admittedly, part of the challenge in such a discussion is defining what we mean by “capitalism” (or “crony capitalism”) but authentic Catholic Social Teaching has affirmed that socialism is indeed not acceptable while laying the foundation for economic principles that defend private property, small markets that are closer to being truly free (“free” meaning the ability to pursue what is just) all overlaid on a desire to have the economy serve man through solidarity.

    Bottom line, just because socialism is wrong, it doesn’t mean that capitalism is all right.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Fox News is definitely not infallible and sometimes publishes opinion pieces which are just plain wrong. Where is Fr. Jonathan Morris when we need him?

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2755897195001

    • JasperBuck

      Good video. Fr. Morris is spot on.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Odd, an atheist who comments on another site just gave an up to Fr.Barron’s video.

    Cuppa, what art thou?

  • Andrew Simons

    Fretful conservative Catholics hope that Francis doesn’t mean what he says or, in the alternative, will stop saying what he means. Or are just in denial that he is saying what he’s saying.

  • Dan C

    I would like to make two linked notations: first- this exhortation links directly Evangelization and working for the poor, seeking their justice.

    Second, since the triumphal win of Western capitalism, faith and the Church have accelerated a decline.

    I think this document identifies that the “win” of capitalism was not necessarily points for God’s team.

    (A nod of appreciation to Mr. Adam Shaw, good sport and good conversant.)

  • peggy

    I think a broader understanding of economics and of Francis’ experience in Latin America is required. First, no conservative intellectual cites Ayn Rand as a primary economic thinker, though she offers views on such matters which are akin to classical economics views. There is a canon of economics that precedes her time and supercedes her knowledge and scope of work. Read Milton Friedman, Von Hayek, Adam Smith (never heard of Shaw. Hate video games with a passion.) Ronald Coase, John Nash. Fred Kahn is a brilliant man now quite elderly. I’ve met him a few times. There are many such great thinkers. There are macro and micro fields of expertise that explain economic growth, how markets work, where markets fail and what kinds of remedies would improve a situation. Relying on Ayn Rand is caricaturing market economics and its adherents.

    Further, while I did indeed find Francis’ commentary dismaying and economically incorrect, I am aware of his experience as a man from Latin America where there is not market economics at work, countries are run by powerful oligarchies that do not care for the poor or offer any socio-economic mobility. And racist attitudes toward native peoples is a factor, to be sure. The solution proposed to remedy these inequalities has been marxism; Catholic clergy and missionaries joined on the bandwagon unfortunately. And many of them were killed as a result of those associations. John Paul II made it clear that liberation theology prominent in Latin America was not a valid Christian theology. I don’t think Francis understands what he’s criticizing. Also, Fr Z noted that a mistranslation into English occurred and a statement is quite different than originally thought.)

    I generally believe that people who criticize market economics do not understand market economics or are anti-capitalist ideologues (ie, communist/marxist). There are NO unfettered markets anywhere to be found to warn against.

    Market economics are not the cause of income inequality today. For instance, QE#384848 is propping up the Dow, putting cash into corporate and big investor pockets, while the rest of us struggle to meet new insurance premiums, while our income flow is flat, if not reduced over the past several years. Those dependent upon govt transfer payments see little if any increase in income since their incomes are regulated and not intended to result in profit to the recipient.

    • Stu

      But do we necessarily equate capitalism with a “free market”? I agree that there exist no “unfettered markets” (a phrase the Pope did not use) but do we have any examples of so-called capitalism that isn’t what they are now calling “crony capitalism”?

      As I have pointed out before, what we mean by “capitalism” varies which makes this discussion sometimes difficult but clearly we are going back and forth between extremes (socialism and “capitalism”) only to really find out that both taken to their natural ends aren’t really that much different and really flip sides of the same coin. Hudge and Gudge just figured this out long before us.

      If only there were a third way that promoted private property, subsidiarity, truly free markets with a mindset on solidarity.

      • peggy

        I agree w/Andy that the Holy Father’s points are moral, not economic “science” per se. His experience with “capitalism” is not similar to the US experience. Yes, you can argue that oligarchs have some degree of control over the macro situation, but as individuals we are not trapped by what they do. We have property rights and such, unlike the lower classes in Latin Am. Capitalism has become a bad word. Marx did a good job on that. It really has more to do with the fact that large amounts of capital must be raised, by issuing stocks or bonds, to construct plant and other facilities of mass production. “Crony capitalism” is a situation in which the government sets the rules so that businesses friendly to it “win” or profit in general. Our nation has generally sought to avoid that, and allow the best products or technologies to win in the market. Sometimes, however, tech standards are set by the feds, ie, HDTV or phone technology, and all participants must comply so inter-connected networks may work together.
        Market economics, as understood in classical economics, would consider subsidiarity and free markets. (Technology has made centralization of business and govt cost efficient, however. That’s not a fault of capitalism–that’s technology.) I think the idea of solidarity has to come from the souls of the people. The market is the aggregation of the individual decisions that people make as buyers and sellers of goods and services.
        Back to Francis’ moral statements. Yes, there is great income inequality. But, before we blast “free markets” or greedy “rich” people, why don’t we try to understand how and why these results occurred? More govt control will typically exacerbate the market failures. The study of economics helps us to determine the most effective policy prescriptions. Often, it’s more leeway to the people. Most economists are not knee-jerk politically-minded. They’re very uncommitted. “It depends” is a famous economic saying. Economists are not businessmen and don’t share the goals of CEOs. They think about the broadest benefit and prosperity of the public, not particular companies. (Some are paid by corporations to aid the pursuit of certain ends, yes. I have been in that profession.)

        And as many of our own bishops’ statements have shown, econ is not necessarily within the expertise of a churchman. Further, the European and Latin American experiences are different from those in the US.
        I can’t pack a whole canon of economic thought in a combox thread, however. Read some of the great works and basic texts.

    • Illinidiva

      I read the section last night on economics and it is very clear that he knows what he is talking about.

  • James Scott

    Mark don’t be stupid and blame all of FOXNEWS for this one obscure idiot’s article. Fox has a diversity of opinions. As my wife pointed out there is Fr. Morris.

    But as for Rush go to town on him. He is dead to me.

    Also you might rather show some intelligence and aim your guns at those idiots on the right who truly deserve it. One word for you buddy…Breitbart. There was one Catholic woman there who posted an article defending the Pope but the majority of crap I’ve seen there has been attacking & repeating the same ignorant talking points.

    Apparently not one of those jerks knows the difference between Consumerism vs Capitalism. The Pope condemns the former and says nothing against the later.

    I might suggest you go after those who really have earned the monker “The Thing that used to be Conservatism” & ignore the little fish like Shaw.

    • David Addams

      YEah cause, Faux News has never been conservative. Look at their support of so-called gay so-called marriage.

      • jaybird1951

        Fox News has lent its support to gay marriage? Where did you get that impression? I have watched most of its commentators and they have not taken that position to my knowledge. Maybe one of the staff on the network has taken a position like that but you cannot say that the network per se has.

  • Andy

    Pope Francis is not making an economic argument – he is making a moral argument about the manner is which the economy runs. The concept that it seems that has ben missed is that people have been reduced to commodities – that the economy values profit above all else. To make the statement that the Pope does not understand is economics is trying to hide behind the prudential judgment dodge, instead of examining the morality of what is occurring around us.

    I am reminded of Galbraith’s quote “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” Economists, those who claim that economics is a science seem to forget that it involves men and women, and we can’t predict what men and women will do.

    We need to listen to the moral statements from the Pope – whether it is Francis, Benedict or Leo. We need to recognize that they are not speaking about economic theory as a science, but rather economic theory as a set of moral values. IF indeed people acknowledge that the pope and church can speak to pelvic issues as moral issues, then those issues which affect the lives of people are equally moral issues and must be addressed by the church.

    • Illinidiva

      Correct.. I just read the economic section of Evangelii Gaudium last night. Life has greater purpose than the pursuit of profit and the efficiency of the markets. What Francis is getting at is that the pursuit of money above all else has turned people into commodities that can be thrown out when they aren’t useful in the pursuit of profit. This includes “los viejos” who are considered a drag on society because they cannot work and cost too much money and “los jovenes” who are new to the workforce and don’t have the connections or experience of older workers and therefore less valuable. Francis also adds the unborn to people considered unvaluable to society, which makes sense because most abortions occur because of economic desperation or selfish reasons (i.e. the Sex in the City set wants one night stands without consequences or a yuppie couple wants a designer baby.)
      Francis also feels that the pursuit of profit deadens and cheapens the economic winners. He has a section at the end (208) that says that he doesn’t mean to offend anyone and is expressing his concern with the best intentions because he wants people who are currently individualistic and self-centered to become more humane and noble.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Limbaugh is a clown, so his comments don’t upset me. The fact that so many people take the clown seriously does upset me.

    • JasperBuck

      Yes, Limbaugh is a clown and a very funny one at that. I encourage you to take the time actually to listen to what he said (I’m sure it’s out there somewhere), you’ll find it’s hardly as the media reported it. But remember, Limbaugh is not Catholic and is wedded to his political world view. We are asking people to take Pope Francis’ words in context (you don’t think Pope Francis is a Marxist, do you?); we should extend Limbaugh the same courtesy. I’ve listed semi-regularly to him for many years and he is a good friend of the Catholic Church. That is why he was so surprised at Pope Francis’ comments. In the 1980′s Limbaugh was the only voice in the media who was pro-life. In the late ’80′s he was invited to St. Patrick’s by then-Cardinal O’Connor, who thanked him for his on-air pro-life efforts. Limbaugh frequently calls attention to attacks by varied groups on the Church when no one else in the media will go near it with a ten-foot pole. Lastly, Limbaugh takes himself less seriously than his attackers do. You’re free to disagree with his politics (as many of his listeners actually do); but don’t attack the man based on Leftist talking points or you’ll make the same mistake Limbaugh made in criticizing good Pope Francis (relying on what others say).

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        I have listened to Rush a lot. Daily during the height of his ’90s popularity. Sporadically in the years since. Even though I’ve rarely agreed with him, back in the ’90s he was fun and didn’t take himself too seriously. I don’t think that’s true anymore. I think he’s swallowed his own hype. I’m not sure why. But some time about halfway through Bush 2′s administration, Rush’s tone turned.
        .
        Rush is NOT a friend of the Church. He has taken the Church’s side when an issue has been Liberalism vs. the Church. But now that the Church is speaking out against Mammon, Rush has chosen to speak for Team Mammon. He needs our prayers just as much as most of the media pundits.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    The fact that Pope Francis has both the Right and the Left freaking out is a pretty good indicator that he’s speaking the truth. When the nutjobs agree with you … it’s time to worry.

    • JasperBuck

      …and, yes, you are absolutely correct about this.

  • jeff

    This might sound weird, but Bishop Fellay from the SSPX’s recent interview is much more balanced in its assesment of the Holy Father than this Fox contributor chap.

    I will say, however, that I’m uncomfortable with the Holy Father’s recent foray into economics. This seems to go beyond the mandate of a Pope. By all means criticize inequality and injustice! I even agree that high youth unemployment is a social evil leading to other social evils and didn’t mind ++Francis speaking about it. But A POPE speculating on their proposed cure (a parochial South American form of populist left wing–albeit non Marxist– politics) is an unnecessary way to divide the Church.

    I love the identification with the poor that the Holy Father has shown (not necessarily his liturgical approach but on the whole yes) You can still have a heart for the poor without claiming to understand economics.

    • Illinidiva

      Francis didn’t speculate about a cure. He didn’t say.. you, United States Congress, must approve this budget with extra taxes. He did very beautifully articulate the Church’s social justice teaching. And “Bishop” Fellay must still be under the desperate impression that Francis is actually going to negotiate with him at all. Francis dislikes self-absorbed promethean neo-pelegians and isn’t about to hold their hands and cry with them over the fact that the Church no longer endorses anti-Semitism. I guess that the SSPX year end fundraising appeal based on Francis as the anti-Christ isn’t going that well, so “Bishop” Fellay has had to change tactics and pretend that reconciliation with Rome is still possible.

      • jeff

        Some charity all around wouldn’t go astray. Anyhow, the Holy Father blames unfettered capitalism for much of the poverty we see in the world today even tho no such states exist.

        • Andy

          You know I have yet to find the phrase unfettered capitalism in the document – what section is it in?

      • Dave Addams

        When did the Church support anti-Semitism? For that matter, when did the SSPX?
        They canned one of their top dogs for saying something about as heretical as the moon being made of green cheese simply because it hurt Jews and their founder died in a KZ (concentration camp)

        • Illinidiva

          “When did the Church support anti-Semitism?”
          For most of its history? The Holocaust didn’t come about because Hitler woke up one morning and decided he hated the Jews. There was a long history behind it and the Jews were a convenient scapegoat. It wasn’t until Nostra Aetate in Vatican II that the Church renounced anti-Semitism.

          “For that matter, when did the SSPX?”
          Here is the latest activities of the SSPX:

          Shouting down elderly Holocaust survivors in Buenos Aires.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/11/sspx-disrupts-interfaith-service-at-buenos-aires-cathedral/

          Holding public funerals for unrepentant Nazis
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/11/sspx-disrupts-interfaith-service-at-buenos-aires-cathedral/

          And here is what the ADL says about the group
          http://archive.adl.org/main_interfaith/society_saint_pius_x.html

          And here is a speech that “Bishop” Fellay made less than a year ago.
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/bernard-fellay-jews-enemies-of-the-church-radical-catholic-sect_n_2425711.html

          “They canned one of their top dogs for saying something about as heretical as the moon being made of green cheese simply because it hurt Jews”

          They kicked out Williamson because he defied Fellay, not because of his views. And those views were awful, especially his utter denial of the Holocaust. Frankly, Williamson is a vile man who would be right at home helping the Nazis ship Jews off to Auschwitz.

          “their founder died in a KZ (concentration camp)”
          Umm.. No he didn’t. Apparently his father did. Which doesn’t mean anything. You could still be an anti-Semite and have died in a concentration camp. Some of the camps, Dachau for instance, were mainly for political prisoners. A low level lackey who looked crookedly at a superior in the Nazi’s puppet Vichy regime could find himself shipped off to a camp.

          • jaybird1951

            I would say that the Church leadership over the centuries sadly fostered anti-Judaism. Anti-semitism on the other hand, is a more modern development and flourished in the secular milieu. Yes, I know that oversimplifies it but the difference is crucial. Hitler hated the Jews for ethnic and racial reasons and not because of theology. .

  • David Addams

    I tuned in to Rush when I was alerted that he was going to replay his comments. He very candidly revealed his ignorance (I used the word neutrally) but also the fact that he was genuinely disappointed in what he thought he was hearing. He also said that he “has been tempted to investigate the teachings of the Church more closely on several occasions.” What could that mean? Pray for him, we’ve had allies in the past come from more unlikely sources than this.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X