Pope Francis has Lunch with Some Argentinian Jewish Leaders

On cue, reactionary hysterics wet themselves.Cuz Jesus never ate with Jews or anything. Reactionaries need a blankie and a bottle of warm milk.

The only people in the Church who regard pope Francis as a problem are the people who have been so wrong about so much so many times that you’d think they would *finally* have started to grow some introspection and humility. But no. In their titanic Pharisaic pride they just go on finding new ways to be wrong again. They have an anti-charism of wrongness. Because sin makes you stupid and pride, their especial sin, is the root of all other sin.

In related news, comedians across globe lament gross neglect of Pope and rabbis to walk into a bar.

  • ivan_the_mad

    Wonderful picture. If their lunch was anything like what I’ve had at Jewish delis, then I’m also really jealous.

    Claiming that this luncheon is a nullification of Mirari Vos proves yet again that the ability to quote Church teaching is not at all the same as understanding Church teaching. Luncheon and ecumenical dialogue therefore INDIFFERENTISM??? … oi vey.

    • Thomas R

      Yeah I don’t think that’s indifferentism.

      I have to admit though that when I read Mirari Vos I had questions and I’ve never been sure how or to whom I should ask them.

      Like how do we understand statements in it such as

      “Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.”

      “The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.”

      I’m nervous even bringing it up. I’m trying to be more faithful so maybe I could even see the idea that, ideally, we should destroy some books and that we do have laws now against say libel. But are we required to defend book burning and the Index today?

      • http://hjg.com.ar/ Hernán J. González

        You are right to bring it up – specially considering that so many catholics (esp. conservatives, in the best sense of the word)
        rejoice on the “constancy” of the Church in her teachings about what’s right and wrong (some are even convinced that here lies her greatness). (“How am I supposed to trust a religious tradition which claims to teach about right and wrong but is willing to change its teachings with the winds?”)

        One sure can speak of a constancy, but not without some critical sense. The first mission of the Church is not about morals, and, even if she has also a teaching mission here, she (and individually us, catholics) must embrace that with humility, recognizing that we have not the definite revealed manual of “what’s right and wrong” (cf torture). We all (the humanity) have lot of things to learn together.
        So, no: I don’t think that to accept the idea that we should burn books is (at least for us) to “be more faithful”. It’s a matter of discussion (but this discussion would require some serious historical studying) the context in which pope Gregory taught the above, and if he was more or less justified in doing so – It’s not a matter of discussion whether a catholic today should regard that as a binding (even relevant) teaching for his actions; he obviously shouldn’t.

        • Thomas R

          Phew. When I started having a bit of “revival of faith”, things like that did trouble me.

      • chezami

        No. The basic development in Church thinking since then has been “Error has no rights, but persons in error do have rights.” It’s an insight Reactionaries have steadfastly and wilfully refused to acknowledge. So the Church herself has abandoned the futility of the Index, while Reactionaries here, as in so many other ways, continue to waste time and energy demanding its return and trying to create an alternatre Church built on fear, law, and rage.

        • Almario Javier

          Let us all remember that the Index was not unbroken Church Tradition. It was meant as a tool to highlight to Catholic people and states which books were most injurious potentially to the ignorant in faith. Of course, the Church has since tailored its strategy, and now keeps only the imprimatur system, in the belief that an increasingly literate laity can exercise critical thinking as to what is true doctrine and what is not.

      • ivan_the_mad

        I concur with the responses you’ve already received. The Index in particular was a judgement made in the context of the advent of the printing press and the Reformation, but historical developments called for re-evaluation and it was decided to abolish the index (if I remember rightly, a/the reason was the sheer volume of new works made it impracticable). But a similar purpose is served when authors give their works for review to their bishop or religious superior (cf. nihil obstat, imprimi potest).

    • Stu

      Indifferentism in this case would have been, “I’ll take the smoked turkey or pastrami. Either is fine.”

  • Thomas J. Ryan

    Next, he’ll be eating with pelagians. NOT

  • freddy

    This gent also spends quite a bit of time chanting the praises of Fisher-More College. I’d think the college would want to distance themselves as far as possible from his type of thinking.

    • Illinidiva

      It seems like Fisher-More College is always experiencing financial trouble and needs all the benefactors it can get (even wacky ones). There seems to be an emergency fundraising drill with that college every month. I guess when looking for a college education for their children, traditionalist Catholic types don’t seem to care about things that the rest of the world feels are important, like the college’s ability to remain a going concern.

      • Stu

        Don’t hate. Everything started off small once.

        • Illinidiva

          When this college inevitably goes under, the students will be scrambling to find a college to finish their education and the alums’ degrees won’t be worth the paper they are printed on. So this could be a serious issue. I actually sympathize with the kids very much and find it distasteful that the parents are gambling on their children’s future in this way. If their parents’ weren’t so fixated on their narrow view of the world in Fortress Katholic, the children could have enrolled in actual colleges that have stable financing and can provide them with actual opportunities.

          • Stu

            Why do you care? Not everyone wants to run off to a vanilla state school for their college years. Further, it isn’t “children” going to college. They are adults and have made a choice on their own. Again, doesn’t affect you. Don’t be so narrow in your outlook. Other people want different things in life.

            • Illinidiva

              Actually, 18-year-olds are children. I don’t care that the state considers them as adults; they still couldn’t function in the adult world. For instance, none of these kids would be able to lease an apartment without Mom and Dad’s signature on the lease. The kids who attend Fisher Moore College are probably even more sheltered than your average 18-year-old.

              As for the college itself, it is likely their parents’ choice because their parents are paying the bill. If their parents are so concerned about their precious children becoming sex addicted liberal atheists in college, then there are other ways to keep them under lock and key that don’t compromise their actual future like having them commute to school from home. And as I said, I emphathize with their kids because their degrees are going to be quite worthless once the college goes bankrupt. College kids with STEM degrees from state university get actual jobs; those with liberal arts degrees specializing in the oath against modernism from small liberal arts colleges that no longer exist tend to have trouble with their careers.

              • Stu

                Well, my experience with young people is different than yours. In fact, I think your viewpoint is rather condescending towards people younger than you. You don’t know any of these students yet you go and make these sweeping generalizations and judgments about them. Not everyone wants to run off and chase dollars in the financial world. Some actually are more focused on their love of Christ and choose a college accordingly. I would think you would be happy for them in finding what they want instead of holding them in contempt.

                • Illinidiva

                  I was once a teenager and as such, I have a tendency to look down on people that age. Been there and done that. And yes not everyone wants to work on Wall Street, but the whole idea of going to college is to be able to start a career. It is very hard to get a job if you have a degree from a college that no longer exists. And I don’t have contempt for the kids; I think that it is likely the parents gambling with the kids’ future.

                  • Stu

                    That is YOUR idea of what college is for. Not everyone sees the World the same way you do nor do they measure success using the same criteria. Rather than casually dismissing that as “parents gambling with the kids’s future” and looking through everything through your own “lens”, expand your outlook some.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I’m sure that the parents could find a small Catholic liberal arts college that isn’t constantly at risk of closing because of financial difficulties. Of course, their children might be exposed to the horrors of a normal post Vatican II Mass or be taught by professors who haven’t taken the oath against Modernism.

                    • Stu

                      Again, you focus on the parents and assume the children had no say in their education. Don’t project your experience on a group of people that you don’t even know.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I think that these children probably have less say in college choices than I did at that age. I don’t think that free-thinking and questioning authority is encouraged.

                    • Stu

                      And I think you are projecting your own experience on everyone else.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I don’t think that if little Suzy decided to become a Buddhist she would be permitted to do so.

                    • Stu

                      Is Suzy a real person that you can point to?

                    • Illinidiva

                      No.. It was a hypothetical. But I very much doubt that traditionalist Catholic parents would be kosher with their child experimenting with different religions.

                    • Stu

                      That has no bearing on your ability to pass judgments on the entire student body at Fisher More College.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I’m not passing judgment on them. I am passing judgment on their parents.

                    • Stu

                      Who you also don’t know.

                    • Illinidiva

                      Well.. If their supporters (Catholic Family News, Rorate Caeli, etc.) are any indications of the sort of parents these kids have to deal with, I feel very sorry for the kids indeed.

                    • Stu

                      Guilt by association. Nice, tovarich.

                    • Illinidiva

                      They read and probably agree with these blogs.

                    • Stu

                      Again, you don’t know them. Stop trying to read hearts and minds and focus on your own.

                    • freddy

                      I dunno.
                      See, my parents sent me to an itty-bitty Catholic college that closed after my first semester.
                      (All my credits transferred to a larger school and I graduated with honors.)
                      But my high schooling was so liberal that I routinely talked about becoming Buddhist (or a priest; I was always interested in religion!) and my parents, conservative though they were, knew they couldn’t “permit” or “forbid” me at age 17 to explore other religions. All they could do was pray for me and encourage me. “St. Itty-bitty” gave me a scholarship, and though it wasn’t the most stable environment, I did begin learning my faith, and found the Catholic Church to be way richer and deeper than I had ever expected. I’m still learning!
                      I’m leery about tiny Catholic colleges; you’re right that they may not be stable, academically; and especially if they knowingly associate with people whose beliefs don’t reflect well on them, just to get money; but I don’t know that’s what’s going on here.

                    • Athelstane

                      What’s wrong with the Oath against Modernism?

                    • Illinidiva

                      Because embracing critical thinking and the modern world are good things rather than being mindless drones that can spout off phrases from the Baltimore catechism.

  • Stu

    Catholic Family News has a website. Who knew?

  • Keith R

    What’s the deal with the use of G-d in the quote?

    • Käthe

      Out of respect for the Jewish belief that one must take great care to protect the Name of God in any form from desecration, I would assume. It’s customary to leave out letters or use euphemisms so that when, say, the website is deleted or the paper is thrown in the garbage, the Name will not be deleted or destroyed in the process.

  • kevin

    WHAAAAAA?????!!!!?!?!?? He ATE with them?????? lol…

  • Illinidiva

    Catholic Family News and other rad-trad sites have been rightly labelled as hate sites by the Southern Poverty Law Center. If I was a traditional Catholic type, I would encourage these sorts to become sedevacanists.

    • Stu

      I’m not going to defend Catholic Family News as they are a fringe group but the Southern Poverty Law Center has a long-standing history as anti-Catholic bigots and would classify most Catholic teachings as “hate”.

      They are pure poison. So an enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend.

      • Thomas R

        They did kind of lose me when they started listing practically all groups opposed to Same-Sex-Marriage as hate groups. However there are elements of the “Traditionalist Movement” that strike me as kind of conspiracist Anti-Judaism and, by other implications, hostile to much of what Popes Pius XI and XII did.

        • Stu

          There are extreme elements everywhere. There are Catholics who call all “traditionalists Catholics” schismatics. So what.

          If the so-called traditionalist groups disappeared today, SPLC would set its sights on the entire Church.

      • Illinidiva

        I think that while the SPLC goes too far in its classification on groups like the Family Research Council as a “hate group,” they are most definitely not poison. They should be commended for the work they’ve done fighting the KKK and other extremist groups in the U.S. And they are very right about extremist Catholic groups.

        • HA

          If poison is too harsh a word, try Ponzi scheme. That’s not the best fit either, but it gives you the general idea of what the organization is really about. Whatever you have against any Catholic group, you are well advised to find something other than SPLC documentation to wave about.

          • Illinidiva

            These groups aren’t Catholic. Many are sedevacanist and SSPX affliated.

            • HA

              Even if they were fundamentalist Muslims, using the SPLC as your cudgel is a foolishly short-sighted strategy. For a group that started out attacking the KKK, the SPLC has done an excellent job of becoming the new set of bigots that Catholics need to steer clear of.

    • Dave G.

      Be careful with that. The SPLC casts a pretty large net when it comes to what counts as a hate group.

      • Illinidiva

        They are very right about the rad-trads. They even snagged screenshots and created reports about the SSPX before the group decided to pretend that they weren’t a hate group after l’affair Williamson. There is no way that you can go to Catholic Family News and the other sites mentioned by the SPLC and not conclude that they are anti-Semitic.

        • Dave G.

          No doubt some are. But I’m leery about the modern tendency of saying ‘you’re right to hate them, but not me.’ Especially when the same group has made it clear that some of my beliefs puts me firmly in the ‘hate group’ category by virtue of having those beliefs. That seems to do little good in the building bridged department.

          • Illinidiva

            Try all the rad-trad groups mentioned on the site. Just because the SPLC is pro-gay marriage and you aren’t doesn’t mean that you should be defending anti-Semitic crazies.

            • Stu

              Where exactly was he defending antisemitism?

            • Dave G.

              I’m sorry, I missed where I was defending anti-Semites. I said I’m sure there are traditionalists who are antisemitic. There are many who aren’t ‘rad trads’ who are antisemitic. My point is, that the SPLC, in ways common to certain strains of progressivism, defines hate and evil as not conforming to various progressive dogmas. With that, I tend to look for other sources to know who to consider filled with hate, since according tot he SPLC, not being for gay marriage puts me firmly in that camp.

              • Illinidiva

                The SPLC isn’t going after all traditionalist Catholics; I don’t think that they care what language the Mass is said in. They are going after specific groups like Catholic Family News and the SSPX that are anti-Semitic. In this instance, traditionalists should really be siding with the SPLC and encouraging those rad trads that aren’t already sedevacanists to become sedevacanists.

                And both sides of culture war issues tend to have carictures of each other.

                • Stu

                  Why would you want anyone to become a sedevacantist?

                  What we should encourage is to bring people back into the embrace of Holy Mother church.

                  • Illinidiva

                    We should obviously encourage them to renounce their anti-Semitism, but if they choose not to, then they should be encouraged to explore other sects. Other sects, like the Mormons, are quite good about disassociating themselves with radical fundamentalists. Catholics could learn from them.

                    • Stu

                      No.

                      First off, as wrong-headed as antisemitism is, it does not bar someone from the Faith like say denial of the Trinity. Further, it can be a loose term as charges of such are routinely used to describe anyone who is against any practice of the government of Israel. So again, we should not push people away from the Church but instead closer.
                      And I don’t really care what the Mormons do in such instances.

                    • Illinidiva

                      Oh.. They should be encouraged to get their own “purer” version of Catholicism and not taint the rest of the Church with their hatred. It is similar to how political parties disassociate themselves from nutty candidates (i.e. David Duke and LA Governor’s race.) And many of the persistent critics of Israel like Noam Chomsky and others are anti-Semitic; it is just that their prejudices are wrapped up in trendy, left wing terms.

                    • Stu

                      Sounds like you are the one looking for “purity”. It’s just a different definition. Instead of policing who is in the Church, perhaps concerning our own standing would be a better course of action.

                    • Illinidiva

                      Well, I just think that it improves Catholicism’s image when the Church isn’t associated with anti-Semites.

                    • Stu

                      Image?

                      The Church is full of sinners.

                    • Illinidiva

                      So is it only the sinners that you agree with or are the evil liberals allowed as well?

                    • Almario Javier

                      Of course they are. Both of them should go to confession post haste.

                    • Illinidiva

                      The point that I was of course getting at is that I’m sure that the poster responding to me would love to get rid of the Nancy Pelosi type Catholics, but think that we should embrace virulent anti-Semites.

                    • Stu

                      Now you are attempting to read my mind as well (failing at it) and attributing beliefs to me that are more strawmen.

                      I would like nothing more than to see Nancy Pelosi submit to Holy Mother Church in all aspects. I don’t wish damnation on anyone.

                    • Illinidiva

                      But you don’t think that the SSPX should renounce anti-Semitism.

                    • Stu

                      Where have I said that?

                    • Illinidiva

                      Nancy Pelosi isn’t going to become pro-life and the SSPX isn’t going to renounce their anti-Semitism. Why are you so willing to welcome and forgive the latter?

                    • Stu

                      You really do need to let people speak for themselves.

                      Save the straw for the horses.

                    • Stu

                      I agree with anyone who affirms the Truth that the Church proclaims. All of them are sinners, btw.

                    • Illinidiva

                      And the Truth doesn’t include anti-Semitism any more than it includes Nancy Pelosi’s version of Catholicism.

                    • Stu

                      No on here is defending antisemitism. No one. Please show your strawman to the door.

                    • Illinidiva

                      Then please don’t get all huffy when an organization rightly points out that these organizations are anti-Semitic.

                    • Stu

                      Don’t get all huffy when someone tells you that your chosen team mate (SPLC) is just as wacky.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I’m huffy when others use their policy disputes to defend anti-Semitic groups.

                    • Stu

                      Your strawman got back in the room again.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Certainly it improves the Church’s image when it isn’t associated with anti-semites. But the way to accomplish that is a conversion of the spirit of those anti-semites, not kicking the anti-semites out and making them somebody else’s problem.

                    • Illinidiva

                      Kicking out the unrepentant ones is a great idea. Reconciling with them without first asking for them to repent and giving them extra special treatment like Benedict did was not a good idea.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Your problem is that you think kicking them out makes them somebody else’s problem.

                    • Illinidiva

                      No. They would be responsible for their own actions as we all are.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Anti-semitism is a form of irrational hate and that’s always a sin. Sin should not be encouraged but the Catholic tradition has generally been to respond to sin by encouraging repentance and never, ever entirely giving up on people.

                      Even those who are excommunicated or rent from the Church in schism are encouraged to come back into communion with the Church even when the divisions are very old. It is a good tradition and one in keeping with Christ.

                    • Illinidiva

                      There are many lapsed Catholics in this world and many people who are sinners. I think that what upsets lapsed Catholics like myself who have been hurt by many aspects of the Church is that so much time and effort was spent making anti-Semites, including unrepentant Holocaust deniers, feel welcome in the Church. People who have drifted away from the Church or been hurt or offended by the actions of the Church weren’t given a second thought.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      OK, you lost me. I’m pretty sure a big chunk of Vatican/Israel relations includes the secondary goal to make sure that any unrepentant Holocaust deniers within the Church are sure that the Pope thinks that this aspect of their beliefs is wrong and sinful and that includes the luncheon that is the subject of this story.

                    • Illinidiva

                      I wasn’t talking about Francis; I was speaking about Benedict. It is very clear that Francis is very interested in reaching out to lapsed Catholics and others in the modern world. This is why many Catholics who have had issues with the Church like him very much. He tries even if some of his outreach, like to women, is a bit awkward. It is also very clear that unlike Benedict, Francis has no interest in reconciling with the SSPX. He is ignoring those extremists. (Thank God!)

                      I think that one thing that offended many Catholics was the time and effort that was made by Benedict to make a group of anti-Semites, the SSPX, feel welcomed and accepted by the Church. The same time and effort wasn’t made to make the many lapsed Catholics who had legitimate grievances against the Church feel welcome or accepted. I certainly didn’t feel welcomed or accepted in Benedict’s version of the Church. In fact, I think that he would have been more than happy if people who didn’t pass his “purity test” or who had ever questioned the Church left. He wanted to kick us out and welcome in unrepentant haters.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      I think that your characterization of Benedict is both untrue and unfair. However, having a legitimate grievance against the Church does not make one a lapsed Catholic. You seem to think otherwise so we might have language problems in the way of us achieving understanding.

                    • Illinidiva

                      How so? I remember him spending a lot of time negotiating with Bishop Fellay and lifting the excommunications despite the fact that everyone knew that the SSPX is anti-Semitic. I remember him spending lots of time caring about the spiritual needs of hypersensitive, ultra-conservative Catholics (i.e. the Father Z set.) I don’t remember him spending much time reaching out to my gay friends who were actually ostracized by their parents. I actually remember him offending them many times by inferring that they were the root of all evil. I don’t remember him caring about people who like myself left the Church because we had bad experiences with it growing up (which is a large portion of “recovering Catholic” population in the West.) I think that he didn’t care about us and wanted us gone so that he could have his smaller, purer Church which only includes the conservative Catholics that appreciated his fussy liturgical concerns and obsession with sexual morality above all else.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      This is a discussion on sin gradation. What kind of sin gets you knocked out of Church and what kind doesn’t? The case of validly but illicitly ordained bishops and leading a community of believers that is not excommunicated is a bit of an odd duck that doesn’t crop up too often. How do you handle that? It seems that oddball cases being handled de novo is not something to get upset about but that’s me. Precedent setting anything usually draws an elevated level of attention from the top.

                      As for Benedict inferring that homosexuals were the root of all evil, I must have missed that every single time it happened.

                      The College of Cardinals seems to be split between an impulse to deepen the faith and to widen the faith. Benedict was the former and Francis the latter. I can see how Francis would be more attractive to you where you are. I like him too. I think that if you take Francis up on his invitation, you will grow to eventually like Benedict. Few stay in the shallow end of the pool forever.

                    • Illinidiva

                      “The case of validly but illicitly ordained bishops and leading a community of believers that is not excommunicated is a bit of an odd duck that doesn’t crop up too often. How do you handle that?”

                      You ignore them. This is what Francis is doing.

                      “As for Benedict inferring that homosexuals were the root of all evil, I must have missed that every single time it happened.”

                      It seemed like every other speech that Benedict gave was about gay marriage being the end of civilization.

                      “I think that if you take Francis up on his invitation, you will grow to eventually like Benedict. Few stay in the shallow end of the pool forever.”

                      I have no desire to like Benedict’s narrow, rigid version of Catholicism… the Church of “No” and rules.

                • Dave G.

                  I didn’t say they did care about the language Mass is said in. But they do define as hate groups those groups who merely disagree with certain issues like gay marriage. Can they be right when they say this or that group is a hate group because of antisemitism? Sure. But there are other organizations I can turn to that don’t include me in the definition of hate.

                  • kenofken

                    It takes a hell of a lot more than opposition to gay marriage to land a hate group designation with the SPLC. They don’t, for example, list the Church. The groups on its list have all been involved in vicious defamation of gays and lesbians as a class of people, and have often advocated for imprisonment or even the death penalty for simply being homosexual. The groups on the SPLC’s hate group list have richly earned their distinction.

  • James Scott

    I don’t know why any of this is hard? SPLC are left-wing scum who might have once upon a time did some good against racist lunatics but now they are lefty scum. Just like E. Michael Jones once upon a time was a sane Catholic who exposed some of the fruity-ness of Medjugorje, Feenites, Fr. Nicolas Grunner and even if you can believe it the anti-Semitism and Neo-Nazi elements in the SSPX(the irony I KNOW!). Now he is himself an anti-Semitic nutter and conspiracy theory fruit cake. Bob Sungenis back when he was a Protestant exposed Harold Camping’s fruit-cakery. They both fell too the Radtrad side.

    OTOH CFN was never sane and never mainstream. They have always been fringe fruitcakes.

    Always!

  • bear

    I’m with you on this one: why o why could they not have picked up a buddhist and walked into a bar?

    • Margaret

      And a Mormon.

  • Rebecca Fuentes

    Pope Has Lunch. Foundation of Church Crumbles. Details at 11.

  • Athelstane

    I have concerns about a few of the inter religious events that Pope Francis has taken part in (mostly before his election).

    But this is a lunch. Hard to see one getting worked up about it.

    • Almario Javier

      People will get worked up about anything and everything. If the Holy Father were to hitch a ride on a moped, you’d have the ill informed denouncing him for going against tradition or something, within the hour.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X