Are Traddie Catholics Anti-Semitic?

In a post yesterday I made some generalized observations about traditionalist Catholics. Never mind that I took care to say “some” and “sometimes” and “a few” and “too often” thus avoiding blaming all traditional Catholics of anti-Semitism, not caring for the poor etc. Still some commenters jumped on it and assumed I was throwing mud at all traditionalist Catholics. I wasn’t. But then perhaps the sensationalist headline at Pewsitter.com didn’t help, which claimed that I was “slamming the Catholic right.”

There are a couple of issues here. First of all, I’m extremely wary of any group or individual who can’t take criticism. If you immediately fly into either a rage or a self righteous pout when you or your group is criticized, then God help you. We all need to learn that our best friends are our critics. If the criticism is fair, then we get a new perspective on ourselves and our problems and we are given light to improve. If the criticism is unfair then we learn patience, kindness, self control and maybe even humility. We grow a thicker skin and maybe even learn to laugh at ourselves.

The second issue is the specific one of anti-Semitism. Is there anybody out there who has experience of the rad-trad Catholic movement who can seriously deny that there are some anti-Semites among their ranks? The fact is that the ugly whiff of racism and Jew hatred clings to the radical traditionalist Catholic movement. This article chronicles the problem if you are uninformed and interested. So does this article.

This is not to say that all traditionalists are Jew haters or holocaust deniers. It isn’t even to say that all traditionalists are secret anti-Semites. It is certainly not to say that traditionalist Catholicism is necessarily anti-Semitic. It’s simply to assert the undeniable fact that some radical traditionalist Catholics are anti-Semitic, and that they should be repudiated by all the decent majority of traditionalists.

The Catholic Church has enough bad press, outright lies and calumnies falsely associating Hitler, the Nazis with Pius XII and the Catholic Church. When the enemies of the faith then do a little digging and find that certain Catholics are, in fact, holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and Jew haters it stinks.

  • defiant12314

    To be fair Father the inaccuracies in the SPLC article were legion
    and over generalized and contain more errors than I’ve had hot dinners.

    a) when the article mentions the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of May, when it refers to Brother Andre Mary (they can’t even get his name right) describing “Jewish nation” as “the perpetual enemy of Christ” I have a shrewd suspicion that Brother (whom I’ve had numerous discussions with on Facebook) he was referring to the Ideology of Zionism which is at it’s heart profoundly anti-Catholic.

    b) Even the BBC’s religion editor knows that not all the clergy of the SSPX were ‘excommunicated’ in 1988

    c) Anyone who has read any article by Brother or any other of the Slave’s would know that they desire only the conversion of the Jewish people (indeed I believe one of their regular parishioners is a convert from Judaism) so that they may be spared the torments of hell.

    There are many others but suffice to say I would not rely on the SPLC (a hate group if ever there was one as it is very anti-catholic) for my information, yes there are some anti-semites amongst the trad movement but I have yet to encounter one in the flesh.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Desiring the conversion of the Jews for their individual salvation is a very worthy goal.

      Denying the holocaust and other such anti-historical tendencies needs to be combated.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Non-SSPX trads are likely not a problem.

  • Laramie Stewart

    Are Patheos blogs Catholic?

  • http://www.comebyyuh.wordpress.com/ Afrofogey

    I’d imagine they were offended by being singled out. Antisemitism is in all parts of society.

  • David Finkelstein

    As a convert to Catholicism from Judaism I have not run into antisemitism myself, but I have heard and read about plenty of examples – mostly historic or European. I guess it’s uncommon but not unknown, but then I don’t hang out in very traditionalist groups either. Antisemitism is simply part of being Jewish or having a Jewish name , but in practice in the US it’s not that pronounced. I guess I expect it and the small comment here or there that is easily dismissed. What surprised me after I converted was the degree of anti-Catholicism out there; it was eye opening.

    • Abulhaq

      Antisemitism is vile. It is also systematic and systematised to the extent that being a Jew, regardless of political, religious or social allegiances, is beyond the pale. There have been enough manifestations of the latter not to need elaboration. Whether the Catholic Church as an institution has engaged in such is debatable. That there have been and are Catholics whose attitude to Jews and Judaism has had all the signs and symptoms of anti-semitism is not. The concept of supersession legitimising some of it. Catholicism stripped of its old Judaic bones would simply not stand and as an orthodox traditionalist believer I cherish them.
      AntiCatholicism is equally pernicious but until some system decides to put us all in concentration camps for our religious ancestry not in the same way.
      Islam takes the view that the only good Jew/Christian is a converted Jew/Christian. The old Catholic view may well have run along the same lines. French culture, both secular and religious, has always manifested a degree of anti-Jewishness. The SSPX probably caught the virus from there.
      However, Bp Williamson was an English convert.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        The problem of Anti-Semitism is quite complex historically. The reason SSPX “caught” the virus is that two of its founding geniuses, Lefebvre & Coughlin, were among the worst Jew haters of the twentieth century. Lefebvre celebrated the Vichy regime; to do so & say you are not arguing for genocide is as absurd as glorifying Nazi Germany & saying you are not arguing for genocide.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      M. Gerard is, alack & alas, not with us anymore, likely because matters became a little hot for him. This really will be my last post. It’s directed to you to help protect you from these fiends & also so you might help protect other Catholics, who are SSPX’s real victims. My experience with Catholicism has also been quite positive, but do remember those Mexican Drug Kings, like the SSPX, are also nominally Catholic! SSPX, while crudely Jew bashing, is not an anti-Jewish hate group of significance. What they want is power within the Church. They are using Jew hatred to attempt to accomplish this. Why do you think M. Gerard mentioned Pope Alexander VI? It would be weird, you know, to say Martin Luther was right on the money, after all. An enemy, Giuliano della Rovere, claimed Pope Alexander VI was a marrano, e.g., descended at least in part from Jews. So what M. Gerard might very well be doing is saying the problem with Catholicism that led to the reformation was too much Jewish influence. So, Jewish priests notwithstanding (they had them before the Spanish & Portuguese Inquisition got going; purity of blood laws eventually resulted in a five generation Jew free requirement for, if memory serves, Spanish Jesuits), what M. Gerard & company will argue is that “jews”, which eventually will include you of course, are the great threat to Catholicism.

      The threat to you & to Catholics deemed too friendly to Jews may become a real problem. That’s because SSPX began under the Nazi heretic Archbishop & has committed serious crimes, including harboring a fugitive murderer from justice. I’ll leave here. My real name ain’t Roxanne, but Roxanne is assuredly available to whack SSPX any time Father here, or one of his friends, wants it done.

      Remember always to spread love, not hate.

  • Bill W.

    “I’m extremely wary of any group or individual who can’t take criticism.”

    I hope you bear these words in mind going forward with the increasing criticism (some justified, some not) of our bishops.

    And the Southern Poverty Law Center? Seriously?
    Is all of this somehow connected to your days at Bob Jones University?

  • MeanLizzie

    “If you immediately fly into either a rage or a self righteous pout when you or your group is criticized…” then you may have slipped into idolatry! :-)

  • FWdePerrault

    I am a traditionalist Catholic with residency in two states. This permits me to circulate through two distinct communities of traditionalists and I socialize primarily with these like-minded peers. In nearly 15 years, I’ve not encountered anti-semitism of any sort. I suspect you are measuring for anti-semitism using a “modern” yardstick honed from the wood of multi-culturalism, religious pluralism and the false irenicism that form the bullwark of today’s secular religion. What might be considered anti-semetic today would not have been seen as such 25 years ago. Traditionalists believe that the Catholic faith is the unique path to salvation and the one true faith. As such Judaism, Islam etc. are considered “false religions” and traditional Catholics are not bashful is using those terms aloud. This alone would qualify as anti-semitism today but was the order of the day for Catholics before Vatican II. Likewise would traditional Catholics actively avoid the “fashion”, seen even among Catholic Bishops today, of attending Passover Saders and Iftar dinners to celebrate Ramadan. Traditional Catholics see this as an endorsement of the practices of a false religion and a betral of Our Lord’s missionary mandate. This resistance is termed by some as anti-semetic, self-righteous, sanctimonious etc. but this was common practice before the 1960s. The duty of Catholics to avoid joint prayer meetings with non-Catholics was in fact enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and was not abrogated until the new code in the 1980s, as such the former code would be called anti-semetic by today’s pan-religious and indifferent spirit.

    • echarles1

      Why is the 1917 Code of Canon Law magic? The church of FWdePerrault finds it so but if you choose to split from post 1917 Catholicism you might just as well split from post 1517 Catholicism. At least the followers of Luther have the decency to call themselves Lutherans. Where are the FWdePerraultans?

      • Bob B

        The 1917 Code of Canon Law is not magic, but it does enshrine the traditional teaching of the Church,which is expressed especially well in Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos and elsewhere. We are concerned about the prevailing indifferentism that predictably follows false ecumenism.

    • Romulus

      You have been attending the TLM for 15 years, you say? Bah — you cannot possibly be as well informed about traditionalism as the SPLC. Get to know them better, and you’ll see: surely they are right beside you at Mass every Sunday.

  • steve5656546346

    Father, I simply cannot believe that you provided two links to the Souther Poverty Law Center as reliable information about Catholicism–or ANYTHING.

  • steve5656546346

    For traditional Catholics, this is the bottom line: we are not willing to support the notion that all those who lived before us were benighted fools. We certainly are willing to admit that this Pope went too far here, and that saint shouldn’t have done that there, but not a wholesale rejection. Indeed, the Bible contains thoughts that you would not hear recent Churchmen state–and which have been condemned as anti-Semitic. If this were not a combox, I would seek to explain more.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      There is a huge difference between those who want to have their leadership speak Latin (nothing wrong with that, really) or have the host disbursed in a particular fashion, & the SSPX; traditionalists of the former sort are not really a problem It is SSPX that is fiendish, at least to me. Of course, one must remember the story of the woman & the geese. One day a woman asked her geese “dear friends, would you prefer to be cooked in orange sauce or raspberry sauce?” The geese answered: “but we don’t want to die”, to which the woman replied “your answer is irrelevant.” The same here, my desire not to be killed is irrelevant to SSPX.

      • Gerard

        Stop pretending to be a victim. You dishonor genuine victims. If you actually had anything to cite, you would provide something to discuss. But you’re simply spreading propagandistic lies.

        You are the attacker who tries to pass yourself as the victim. You’ll find no SSPX comments or philosophy that is as vicious as your attacks on Catholics on this thread alone.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          I have cited things! You have not. Tell you what.

          Here’s SSPX celebrating Nazi Archbishop Lefebvre
          http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3161

          Prove me wrong. Does SSPX or does it not support Nazi Archbisoph Lefebvre?

          • Gerard

            You’re wrong. It’s apparent that you don’t even know what a “Nazi” is. To call archbishop LeFebvre one is utterly absurd and probably merely an attempt to bait the discussion into a flame war since you have no substance with which to prove your assertions. You seem to have an unbalanced understanding of history, and a profound ignorance of Jewish persecution of Catholics. As an aside LeFebvre suffered more from the Nazi regime than you or I ever will.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No it is not.
            Support for the Vichy government (1940–1944). Lefebvre spoke approvingly of the “Catholic order of Pétain”, referring to the Vichy head of state Philippe Pétain, who was later sentenced to death as a traitor and died in prison.[3] The Society organises pilgrimages to Pétain’s tomb,[4] and during the 1987 pilgrimage the Archbishop referred to him as having “restored [France] spiritually and morally”.[5] The Society’s official journal in Belgium has denounced the anti-Vichy trials conducted after World War II by the mainstream republican conservatives of Charles De Gaulle.[6] There have also been allegations that the SSPX had links with the Vichy functionary Paul Touvier and that Vichy songs were learned at a scout camp of the Society (see below).
            Support for the Front National political party and its leader, Jean-Marie le Pen, who is on the far right of the political spectrum.[7][8] In 1985, Lefebvre was quoted in the French far-right periodical Présent as endorsing Le Pen, though his endorsement was made on the basis that Le Pen was the only major French politician who unambiguously condemned abortion. In 1991, the then SSPX priest Fr. Philippe Laguérie called the Front National “the party least removed from the natural law”.[9]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-4

            That’s Nazi to anyone with eyes.

          • Gerard

            No. No No. Nazism to anyone with eyes is based on social liberalism, eugenics and evolutionary theory, propaganda and scapegoating, the idea of an ethnic and racial superiority finding expression in the idea of a “Chosen People/Master Race” model, and political and economic domination “tribal patriotism” and a whole host of other characteristics that are shared by various groupings of peoples. None of which is the Catholic faith as taught by Church and repeated by traditional Catholics of the SSPX stripe.

            Now, I find it interesting that you want to keep on the offensive and turn a blind eye to jewish persecutions of Christians. How does the “Sophie’s Choice” of the Vichy government during the war, compare to some well-known parallel in history but only much more grievous and over a much longer period of time?

            I love these biased reports you cite about “links” to this or that controversial figure. They are the equivalent of “Stormfront” articles against jews, but these are articles against Catholics. If someone pulled the “links” schtick against “the jews” without qualification, they would be considered the worst antisemite around. Applying the same standard, your citations and condemnations of the SSPX are the worst kind of anti-Catholicism. Along with rash judgement and calumny which is what you’ll have to account to God for.

            For someone that a week ago couldn’t spell “LeFebvre” or get the name correct of the Pope the SSPX is named for, you sure can spout the propaganda as if you are suddenly the authority.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Changing the topic to Sophie’s Choice does not alter the argument against Nazi Archbishop Lefebvre (altering the spelling of his name is service to Almighty God). Almost every Nazi greasebag had some sort of excuse

            Let’s return to nice Nazi Archbishop Lefebvre. Read two paragraphs from a very long article on Mr. Touvier.

            Paragraph 1.

            Many of the documents on which this article is based have never been published. They come from the files of Gerard Chauvy, a French historian who has dug into the Lyons archives, and the author of two books on the
            Occupation in that region. Several other people who were interviewed for this article did not want their names used out of fear of reprisals, even now, from Lefebvre’s traditionalist Catholic network.

            Paragraph 2.

            In Lefebvre’s followers, Touvier found an organized support group with tentacles reaching into the government and the police, where a small number of integrist sympathizers held mid-level posts. For Lefebvre’s
            group, hiding Touvier was a crusade; in their priories and convents, they said prayers for his safety. As a result, the search for Touvier stalled; it’s not easy to find a man who has a network of secret helpers offering information, money and asylum.

            http://tinyurl.com/lawjp3q

            How can you deny Lefebvre was a Nazi given that information? Catholic Prelates in France initially said OK, but not for very long. Only Lefebvre & his claque stood by the monsters after the war. Do you think it mere coincidence that Lefebvre was excommunicated about a year before Touvier was arrested? Don’t you think Pope John Paul II, who knew exactly what was what when it came to Nazis, kind of heard Lefebvre’s group was hiding this fiend?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The New York Times is the equivalent to Stormfront to you? Says a lot about you, as does your two sides to slavery business. Quite seriously, look at that article. There’s harboring a fugitive from justice, witness intimidation; that’s accessory after the fact. That’s why Pope John Paul II had every reason to excommunicate Lefebvre–his group was guilty of Nazi war crimes by being an accessory after the fact. Neither is that a small matter. The harboring of Nazi fugitives in Argentina eventuated in the horrific events of the 1970′s with Vidella monstrocity.

            IPope Pius XII was a good man. That judgment came after very careful thinking & evaluation of matters. My first reason was his stomping on the worst clerical monster of them all–Father Tiso. The second was his cooperation with the prosecution at Nuremberg, something for some reason forgotten. Here’s Justice Jackson:

            Also during the last week of August, Jackson arranged an audience with the Pope at the Vatican in order to secure evidence of religious persecution of Catholics by the Nazis. Jackson’s audience was set for noon on Tuesday of the last week in August. In the meantime, Jackson met with General Richmond at Capri to discuss problems facing the American staff. After his conference with Richmond, Jackson flew directly to Rome. Despite cynics who expected little from the Pope, Jackson’s confidence proved well founded when the Pope provided Jackson with a detailed memorandum regarding persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany and Poland. The Pope also provided Jackson with copies of incriminating correspondence between the defendant Von Ribbentrop and the Vatican, as well as instructed the Vatican’s secretary of state to be at Jackson’s disposal.

            http://tinyurl.com/lu5qymv

            That’s doing what one should. The Pope lacked a single bullet, yet, as documented by the 10,000,000 or so acts overseen by his assistant, who would later become Pope himself, did wonders. I recognize others disagree, but that’s my feeling. Now then. How do you think Pope Pius XII would feel about someone who hindered justice with respect to a Nazi war criminal, namely Touvier? Don’t you think he would strongly condemn this as the heinous crime it was?

          • Gerard

            The NYT is biased and full of incendiary language and dubious facts with slanted conclusions. The same with Stormfront. The fact that you fail to recognize the similarities is telling. Perhaps my reply on slavery hasn’t been vetted or was deleted, but let’s get your position straight. You think no Blacks in Africa engaged in the capture and sale of other Blacks as slaves as part of the slave trade? Sorry. I’m right, you’re wrong.

            Please provide a condemnation of the SSPX and LeFebvre by John Paul II based on committing Nazi war crimes. You won’t find it. You are simply inventing that nonsense out of whole cloth. It seems your ethno-narcissistic myopia blocks out any of the real reasons for the conflict between JPII and LeFebvre. Those reasons involve names like Loisy, Tyrell, Chenu and de Chardin. Names that probably mean very little to you.

            Archbishop LeFebvre was one of Pius XII’s most trusted bishops and was saintly all of his life. LeFebvre was the most successful missionary priest of the age. He was on the preparatory schemata commission for Vatican II appointed by Pope John XXIII. Calling LeFebvre a nazi war criminal especially considering his father’s fate at their hands is ridiculous.

            You question the actions regarding Touvier, but that’s because you lack the light of Catholicism. Giving sanctuary to a repentant man who was part of a movement that killed your own beloved father, offering him absolution is the action of a saint, not a collaborator. Just as Maria Goretti, forgave her murderer and would be rapist, prior to her death, you’ve demonstrated yet another saintly attribute of the good archbishop. “But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you.”

            I’ll offer up my Rosary today for you that you’ll gain the light of conversion.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You lack a scintilla of proof for your argument. Sort of like the OJ trial. That wonderful moment, you know, when Johnnie Cochrane (fabulous lawyer) got up there & said “do you think I would go around like this & not be recognized?” Well, OJ likely did indeed do that. Let’s take a look at your supposition. First of all, we have no idea what Lefebvre thought about his father. Lots of folks hate their fathers,. Second, it is a matter of fact that France was anti-Jewish AFTER the war. That’s why Sartre had to write Antisemite & Jew.. In any case, you lose for lack of evidence against the documented case that LeFebvre was a Nazi.

          • Gerard

            Honestly. That is hilarious. Your M.O. is 1)make unsubstantiated allegations, 2) ignore any errors you make when called on it and attack those who point it out and 3) claim victory because of your own arbitrary standards.

            You claim in one post that Lefebvre hated Jews because of what the Nazis did to his father, then in another you claim that LeFebvre probably hated his father and you also that no one knows. What’s your point then? Just to get the accusations out there apparently. You’ll make anything up as long as your hatred of Jesus Christ and His one,true Church is funneled through a savage hatred of the saintly archbishop.

            LeFebvre’s relationship with the heroic and saintly Pius XII and his successes as a priest and missionary are irrefutable. No one. No one disputes that.

            You provide no evidence for your fabricated allegations. I asked you to provide John Paul II’s condemnation of LeFebvre based on LeFebvre’s Nazism. And you simply move on as if people will forget about it. (God will not forget about it and you’ll be punished for it in Hell, unless you obtain forgiveness through his sacraments.) “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

            You make all sorts of moral judgements on others and avoid looking at your own ethnic/religioius/cultural -(whatever element is most advantageous at the time) history and don’t see the hypocrisy in your statements. You make broad brushed statements against the French, when a case can be made that is worse for contemporary Israel.

            You prattle on about France being “anti-Jewish” but ignore the Third Republic and it’s anti-Catholicism.

            Your tactics are simply that of a provocateur and not a person looking for truth.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Evidence may not prove the claim. Evidence may be biased. Evidence may be admissible or inadmissible. Nonetheless, what you have received from me is evidence.

            ev·i·dence noun
            1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
            2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
            3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

            fab·ri·cate [fab-ri-keyt] Show IPA

            verb (used with object), fab·ri·cat·ed, fab·ri·cat·ing.
            1. to make by art or skill and labor; construct: The finest craftspeople fabricated this clock.
            2. to make by assembling parts or sections.
            3. to devise or invent (a legend, lie, etc.).
            4. to fake; forge (a document, signature, etc.).

            Fabrication can mean several things. One may fabricate a clock with the skill of a great craftsman. One may also fabricate signatures. Every link provisioned by me can be accessed. None were created by me.

            What that leaves you with is the notion you repeat over & over again. That I am dishonest. This is quite funny because you cannot harm me for obvious reasons simply by claiming I am being dishonest. Neither will you persuade those who look up the links of my dishonesty simply by making the claim.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The Vichy Government was Nazi government. You cannot deny this.

            Check this video to see them supporting the Nazis.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOmrEnLN0Nw

            Here is the pig Petain speaking.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tf3tOPJU8A

            Here is one of de Gaulle’s magnificent speeches:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR3o13i0sd0

            Do not try to fool people into thinking otherwise. Supporters of Vichy France today are neo-Nazis.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            SSPX supported one of the foulest French Nazi’s, Mr. Paul Touvier:

            But even half a century after the killings, there were French people who remembered a far different Paul Touvier from the one he himself recalled. They called him “the hangman of Lyon” and “the French Barbie,” after Klaus Barbie, the Lyon Gestapo chief whom Touvier served as intelligence chief of the local militia.
            . . .

            He evaded the law until he was captured on May 24, 1989, at a Catholic monastery in Nice that was operated by followers of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, a right-wing cleric who had been excommunicated by the Vatican the year before. Touvier had spent several months in the monastery and had occasionally been seen walking near it dressed as a priest.

            http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/touvier-obit.html

          • Gerard

            Horse feathers. This particular kind of anti-Catholic attack is similar to the dust up over the gangster “Dutch” Schultz converting to Catholicism and receiving last rites before his death. The fact that criminals and sinners receive absolution and support of Catholic priests is indicative of the nature of the Catholic Church. It’s not a hotel for the saintly, it’s a hospital for sinners.

            If Touvier with the help of SSPX priests repented of his crimes and sins and received absolution and was able to save his soul, good for him. God forgives murderers if they seek his forgiveness it doesn’t matter if the murderer is Touvier, Allesandro Serenelli, or King David.

            You have to remember that God is the primary offended party in any sin or crime. The forgiveness of the victim is irrelevant to the salvation of the soul of the criminal. The forgiveness of the victim benefits the victim and their soul, because they will be held accountable for their unwillingness to forgive.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Catholic priests who converted Dutch Schultz may have succeeded in making an honest man out of him. Catholic priests did not help Dutch Schultz hide out from the cops.
            18 USC § 3 – Accessory after the fact

            Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

            http://tinyurl.com/k4z7hkz

            Lefebvre & his criminal gang knew this man was sentenced to be shot for Nazi war crimes. By harboring him, they became accessories after the fact. This makes them Nazi war criminals.

          • Gerard

            Two things: The Catholic principle of Sanctuary, not that we know that was even invoked because from reading up on it, it seems wiretaps were involved, so the seal of the confessional may have been violated by a third party to obtain information on him. Second, hilariously you are citing U.S. law for an event that occurred in Europe.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Harboring a fugitive from justice is illegal in Europe; the French entity led by Lefebre was a Nazi criminal entity. You are not the one being persuaded (can’t even get you to change from a brown shirt to a white one). Those reading this are. Those reading this should read the New York Times extensively researched article to see that Lefebvre was a Nazi war criminal by being an accessory after the fact to Nazi war crimes–his organization obstructed justice with respect to an important Nazi war criminal.

          • Gerard

            Your inconsistency in logic, your dubious citations and your anti-Catholic hatred of Jesus Christ is manifest for all with eyes to see. I haven’t insulted you once, but you’ve made numerous snarky and let’s face it, evil attacks on me. That’s a shame. Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ’s love is far more fulfilling than your attacks and more than compensates for it.

            You selectively quote from your beloved NYT article to condemn LeFebvre but you ignore the part where it claims that Touvier catered his plea to decieve those who helped him. It also never cites LeFebvre as ever having any contact or being aware of Touvier’s existence. There is a Jean Pierre LeFevre mentioned which is not Marcel LeFebvre. Inconvenient, I know. But truth doesn’t seem to give you pause except how to squirm around it.

            And BTW, LeFebvre never claimed he had a Church or that it was the only “authentic” Church. That is pure fiction. So, your biased sources simply stink and you sift through them to promote your rancid agenda of anti-Catholic hatred.
            Sorry, but that’s what you are objectively doing.

            How many murderers have fled to Israel that you know of? Do their victims not matter? Is Israel “anti-Catholic” with it’s laws and persecutions? Is it moral for lies about Pius XII to be displayed on Holocaust memorials? You’ll ignore those questions, I understand. It goes against your MO. But applying your standards to you and your self-identified affiliations, no one needs to feel guilty or have fallen short by comparison. Of course, that’s why you have double and triple standards to attack those your decide to persecute.

            I find your phony baloney moral outrage to be hollow and hypocritical. Your comments are indicative of the mentality of a cultural/racial/socio supremacist who is bigoted against God above all and intent on destroying His works on earth.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Here’s evidence for you:

          New York, NY, January 8, 2013 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the Catholic traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), as an “unrepentant anti-Semite” after he
          referred to Jews as “enemies of the church.”

          “We have many enemies, many enemies,” Bishop Fellay said, according to a recording of his speech posted on YouTube. He said that those who have been “most opposed that the church would recognize the Society” are
          “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the Modernists.”

          “Bishop Fellay has shown his true colors as an unrepentant anti-Semite who will not hesitate to blame Jews for his internal problems with his own church,” said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs. “Fellay has made it clear that the society is a movement that adheres to centuries-old anti-Semitic beliefs, one that is training priests and teaching traditionalist
          Catholics to hate Jews.”

          The League welcomed comments of Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi who, in response to Bishop Fellay’s speech, stated that ‘it is impossible to speak of the Jews as enemies of the Church,” and that “the
          Church is deeply committed to dialogue with Jews.’”

          http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/interfaith/adl-calls-head-of-catholic.html

          Why can’t you SSPX types be good Catholics? Pope Francis is, to me, becoming quite amazing. I worry about his being lax on security, but what a wonderful man.

          • Gerard

            You are citing ADL propaganda. That’s the group of liars that were spouting out nonsense about “violence” against Jews during the Passion of the Christ -release. Abe Foxman prior to the release publicly stated that he snuck into a pre-release screening that he didn’t have an invitation to. That makes him a thief. He then lied about the movie prior to it’s release. He has zero credibility. He is an enemy of the Catholic Church. Precisely the “enemies” that self-identify as “jews” that Bishop Fellay referred to.

  • Dale

    Only a few of the traditionalists I have encountered have expressed anti-Semitic views. But far too many of them have dismissed or excused persons who do hold such views. I think there is a sense that the community, as a minority group, needs to “protect its own.”

    If that is the motivation, it is a mistake. Just as the gay rights movement distanced itself from NAMBLA and its supporters, traditionalists need to make clear that anti-Semitism in their community is not to be tolerated. Traditionalists need to convince such persons why they should reconsider their views. And traditionalists need to stop inviting those persons to be speakers, or guests of honor, or any other thing which would cast credibility or acceptance on such persons.

    We readily protest when a Catholic university invites a speaker who holds views contrary to Catholic teaching, even if the speaker will not be talking about those views. We do this because the honor and status of being invited casts the speaker in a favorable light, and increases their influence. I think the same principle applies when it comes to any Catholic with anti-Semitic views. Stop defending them, stop excusing them, stop honoring them.

    • ponerology

      I’m not too sure the ‘gay’ rights movement has distanced itself from pedophiliac groups at all. There is a great momentum to ‘normalize’ pedophilia as just another ‘choice’ which needs legal protection.

  • brian

    one problem is many people assume believing the new covenant to have superseded the old, that jews need to convert to be saved, that the new good friday prayer for them is quite open to heretical interpretation, that the prayer for the consecration of the human race to the Sacred Heart was good as it was pre vat 2, or any other traditional prayers or beliefs are themselves anti semitic

  • Curious

    You’re seriously citing the anti-Catholic SPCL to show that rad trads are anti-Semitic?

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Tell you what. The Vichy regime comprised a bunch of monstrous thugs.

      See this lecture series from Yale:

      http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-276/lecture-18#ch2

      Anyone apologizing for that heinous regime, considered illegal by every French government since that time, is a neo-Nazi. The mother’s song for Vichy apologists at birth:

      Hotsy Totsy
      A neo Nazi.

  • tradne13838

    I made this point on FB, and I’ll repeat it here. Jews aren’t Semitic for the most part. Most are of Eastern European descent. Also, it’s only a small minority of Traditional Catholics that truly hate Jews (as opposed to merely being opposed to Rabbinical Judaism, which openly opposes Christ and His Church). That’s not hard to figure out. I mean, if we go out denouncing every crazy or hateful thing a professed Catholic says, that’s all we’d probably ever do.
    And besides, the Jews have said and done hateful thing to Christians, too. It goes on in Israel even today. Let them cast the beam out of their own eye.

    • Michael

      If you are willing to look at someone else and say that they need to cast the beam out of their eye, you have wildly missed the point of that parable.

      • Gerard

        Of course, telling him that also says something if you’re interpretation of that parable seems to conflict with the spiritual works of mercy called “rebuking the sinner” and “instructing the ignorant.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    It doesn’t help that to English Speakers who don’t know Latin, the most visible part of the Novus Ordo was *removing the Prayer of St. Michael* from the end of mass, complete with its call to the conversion of the Jews.

    NOTHING pushed anti-semites into the rad trad movement like that did.

    • http://suscipesanctepater.blogspot.com/ Matt Roth

      What are you talking about?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        In many diocese in America, in the 1940s and 1950s, it was common to end Mass with the Prayer of St. Michael- asking for protection for the Church and for the conversion of the Jews. Removal of that prayer seems to be a major complaint of the anti-semite RadTrads- and they point to Nostra Aetate as the reason for its removal.

        • Romulus

          I would like to see the text of that prayer.

        • http://www.northstarexplorers.org/ Peregrinator

          There is no mention of the conversion of the Jews in the Leonine Prayers, of which the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is one.

        • Pat

          Praying for the conversion of anybody is an act of charity. Would you rather pray that souls not convert to the Catholic Church? This is a silly argument; at least if you claim to be truly Catholic. Then again, if everybody goes to heaven these days then I guess praying for anybody for any reason is in vain.

        • http://suscipesanctepater.blogspot.com/ Matt Roth

          Also, it’s after Mass, not at the end of Mass. Trads constantly make this mistake, and it’s irritating. Even the most noxious sedevacantist should know enough to not make this mistake (I say this because one can find this on Google…).

    • Romulus

      The Prayer to St. Michael has nothing whatever to do with conversion, of Jews or of anybody else. It is a prayer for protection from spiritual attack, period.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        My fault, due to the rad trads I had dealt with in Usenet over a decade ago. It is two different prayers, both of which seem to have (at least in their minds, happened before I was born) suppressed at around the same time.

        The first is the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_prayer_for_the_Jews

        The second is the prayer to St. Michael for protection:

        http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/michael.htm

        • Romulus

          The Good Friday prayer that many Jews find objectionable was suppressed by Pius XII — yeah, “Hitler’s Pope”. Like the rest of the traditional Good Friday liturgy, it was a prayer of great antiquity, from a time deep into the first millennium when persecution by the Roman Empire was a real and deadly serious prospect. The new Christian religion did not enjoy the legal tolerance enjoyed by the Jews, some of whom saw it as their religious duty to denounce Christian assemblies to the Roman authorities. This older brother/younger brother tension goes back to the very beginning of the Church, including centuries in which it was by no means certain that Christianity would one day achieve dominance, and occasionally even afterwards in islamic lands. While the trauma of the Holocaust was not a Christian act, it has made us all more conscious of the evil that can result when when hatred is not vigorously opposed. Pius XII therefore concluded after the world war that notwithstanding the historical record, it is unhelpful and even dangerous to think of the Jews of our time as categorically “perfidious”; consequently that term was removed from the Good Friday prayers. The prayer for their conversion was quite rightly retained however.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            All I’m saying is that the anti-semites found changes to this prayer as being objectionable to anti-semitism and their view of Catholic teaching. No need to bring in what the Jews thought or what Pius XII thought at all.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        It must be said that I (& likely 99% of non-Catholics) have no idea what you are speaking about.

  • Adeodatus

    Father, I’m a Traditional Catholic. My wife and I are shocked and horrified at the abuses against Jesus Christ regularly perpetrated at the Novus Ordo. I am also politically very far to the right. But on this issue of antisemitism, I think that perhaps the problem is partly one of the Internet vs. Real Life.

    On the Internet, you can hear people say all sorts of things. How many people do these voices represent? I don’t know how anyone could scientifically ascertain that, even to estimate it. All I can say is that in my personal experience with Traditional Catholic faith communities, I have never in Real Life heard anyone make a disparaging comment about Jews. My wife was raised Traditional and she has not encountered this either. Even though one of my pet subjects is history, and I talk about it constantly, no one has ever challenged the facts about the Holocaust. I don’t think either of us has been the victim of a conspiracy of misdirection; antisemitism simply doesn’t appear to be prevalent among Traditionalists.

    The only times I’ve heard antisemitic remarks associated with Traditionalism have been online. Then again, I’ve heard all sorts of dumb stuff online. If someone thinks that antisemitism is somehow prevalent among Traditionalists, then I assert that whoever makes that assertion has actually had very little contact with Traditionalists in Real Life. Obviously if someone has not had much contact with a group of people… actual person-to-person contact… then it would seem somewhat unjust to tar them in this way. Especially when the defining characteristic of the Catholic Traditionalist is the desire that all should show reverence to Jesus Christ.

  • Katharine

    The “traditionalists have antisemites among their ranks” blog whoring is getting old.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      The term “vile SSPX heretic” should be regularly used instead.

      • Gerard

        Take all of your rhetoric and replace “SSPX” or “LeFebvre” with “Jews/ Jewish” and you’ll see how you’re behaving. It only seems to resonate one way to your perceptions.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          You & your pals want slavery back, or one of you would not have claimed there’s “two sides” to that issue. Why are you not attacking Protestants? It’s obvious! They are a large group of people, meaning they would crush you without any trouble. You are nothing but cowardly & violent hypocrites.

          • Gerard

            1) Wanting slavery back? Just an invention you use to calumniate Catholics (ie. a lie- it shows your lack of character and integrity and desperation to make something ‘stick”)

            2) Why not attacking Prots? Funny bit of spin on your part (Have you stopped beating your wife type of question. ) Answer: We’re not attacking anyone. We’re defending ourselves. You are the attacker in case you don’t think anyone noticed.

            3) Bait and try to provoke all you want. All you are doing is exposing your anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred. You keep attacking Fr. Coughlin. The Ku Klux Klan attacked Coughlin, so obviously you are no different than than the KKK in your anti-Catholicism.

          • LATRUN

            More and more sophistry

          • Gerard

            Would that you were able to prove your false allegations. But you can’t. So you are left with ad hominem.

          • LATRUN

            I need more proof than your statement concerning the definition of a “Nazi”. When you stoop to the debate of such definitions, you remind me of Bill Buckley. Anything to avert the thread.

          • Gerard

            Considering you’ve done nothing substantive but make veiled accusations and false assertions, I have no worries that your nominalism and deliberate avoidance of clarity and concision is making my argumentation suffer by comparison.

          • LATRUN

            Apparently you are unable to recognize(or maybe it is just your style of avoidance) that you answer the accusation that you are an anti-Semite by calling me an anti-Catholic. What could be more ad hominem than that?

          • Gerard

            Considering the fact that I’ve said nothing against Jews or you personally or your ethnicity, and you’ve done nothing but make veiled attacks against the Catholic Church, there is a manifest difference. You’re accusation is unsubstantiated. You’ve provided the substance in your posts for my conclusion that you’re anti-Catholic. Without any basis you’ve attacked my knowledge of history and made the unsubstantiated claim that I have a “sad history” to defend. Your accusation is hollow. In this discussion, you’ve been the aggressor and the persecutor. Not traditional Catholics.

          • LATRUN

            Tell that to the Jews of Trier or Alexandria who were unfortunate victims of early Crusades,. Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust-I will not repeat the litany of that involvement. Conflating accusations with attacks is such a weak argumentative style – I think you have used up your miserably small arsenal of diatribe.

          • Gerard

            You would have to state your litany in the first place to refrain from repeating it. And I doubt you want facts to get in the way of a good smear.

            But to the larger, point, I suppose you can tell St. Stephen or 3 centuries of Christians persecuted that because there were jewish and other victims of sinful Christians that rules out the possibility or admissibility of Christian victims at the hands of jewish persecutors ever existed. Tell St. Maximilian Kolbe of Catholics involvement in World War II, tell Rene LeFebvre. Tell St. Edith Stein that her suffering is unacknowledged by the modern holocaust pimps because she was a Christian and suffered for that over her race. Tell jew and Christians alike getting their limbs hacked off by muslims how unwelcome Crusader Knights were especially on pilgrimages to the Holy Land after centuries of attack by Muslims.

            And why don’t you have a litany of some jews cooperating with Nazis or Bolsheviks? Weren’t there soldiers and jewish ghetto police? You don’t seem to want to face both the good and the bad that exists in human history within each grouping, so why the emphasis on the bad in Catholic hisotry and the ignorance of the good, and the denial of the existence of bad in jewish history?

          • LATRUN

            More wordplay. You wanted facts. I think you have more than you could ever deal with. Your trivia certainly paies in comparison. Thanks for the admission

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Saying “there’s two sides” to the slavery issue is being a slavery apologist. No way around that.

        • LATRUN

          You forgot St Thomas Aquinas who was so weak in the face of the bully St Ambrose. But you can not hide the roots to which this all leads and to which you are obviously an ardent subscriber.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    Was I hallucinating or did I see him cite the disgusting Southern Poverty Law Center?

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    It’s important to hear firsthand what Conciliarists wrongly consider to be anti-semitic. First, I offer this:

    http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20080928-Seder-Meals-Violate-the-1st-Commandment.html

    Then:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK0vzm-VQaM&list=PL06B4DEFB77EABEF3&index=8

    There’s nothing anti-semitic here. It’s simply the genuinely Catholic – not Conciliar – teaching.

    • jeff

      Dude. That’s Willliamson. ’nuff said. And I am a self-identifying trad and Rorate Caeli reader.

  • Carlo Razzeto

    I had a lot of comments, perhaps too many. Good thing I noticed my wife was signed in thus prompting me to delete anything. Perhaps I’ll leave it at this, perhaps trads are just getting a little tired of being singled out. There has been a lot of apologetics lately, which has had the effect of generalizing all us traditionalists (yes I am one) even when the apologist took more care than I saw here to distinguish who was being talked about and who wasn’t with in the community.

    This has had certain effects, like the fact that when I do discuss matters (communion on the hand, some other such things) in a tone meant to create an engaging and mature conversation things usually devolve very quickly and I get labled sede vacante, Vatican II hating, high way to hell schismatic, evil, heritic soul whom would be better off being burned at a stake.

    I can’t comment on all your points Father. I will say usually I love everything you do, and I will give you antisemitism is a fair thing to bring up I guess but only in the context that the most extreme elements of traditional Catholicism now has facebook to move forward that sad and misguided agenda. My first experience with it believe it or not was with a very liberal, democrat card holding, Obama voting Catholic. I see and hear constant antisemitism from these groups as well, though I will say they have the smarts to keep it more private one on one.

    God bless Father. I hope one day you’ll look into the moment as a whole and perhaps take time out to write a piece on the reasons Pope Benedict XVI treasured it and created a good environment in it to grow.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    There have been two forces battling since Christ died and rose again: 1. Jews who accepted Christ and formed the Catholic Church, and 2. Pharisaical Jews who rejected Christ and have persecuted the Jews who became Christians ever since.

    It’s Christ versus Antichrist. Who’s side are you on?

    “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” ~ Saint John (1 John 2:22)

    I wonder… would you say the New Testament anti-Semitic, too?

    “These vicious and treacherous New Testament verses, have given the impression that the Jews in the time of Jesus were degenerate and cruel and that they are a deicide race. They have been spread by the church for the last two millennia, and have not been rooted out of Christian thinking to the present day. Even those fundamentalist lovers of Israel, only love the Jews in order to save them from the punishment awaiting them for not having accepted Jesus. They, as much, if not more than any other Christian today, believe that the Jew is guilty of deicide and that his Judaism is an old worn out rag which they wish to replace with their New Testament.” ~ Shmuel Golding

    Source: ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, by Shmuel Golding – http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemitisminthenewtestament_1.html

    See: Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? – http://wp.me/pPnn7-21a

    Goats, not Scapegoats – Jesus on Jews (and Gentiles) who reject him as Messiah (Savior) – http://wp.me/pPnn7-xy

    Being critical of the disproportionate influence of Jewish involvement in Communism, Socialism, revolutionism, US politics, abortion, sexual “liberation”, pornography, Hollywood , and US media is an observation based upon research, reality, and Jewish source materials. It is not based upon racism and racial determinism.

    “All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers in the United States — the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) — were of Jewish birth, including now pro-life Dr. Bernard Nathanson. • Jews make up the largest single bloc of abortionists of any faith, and are vastly over-represented in the abortion industry. Jews comprise only about 2.2 percent of the total United States population, but a staggering 26.4 percent of all abortionists self-identify themselves as Jews” Human Life International

    Source: Complicity of Apostate Jews in the American Abortion Holocaust – http://www.hli.org/cloning/465?task=view

    “I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.” ~ Joel Stein

    See: Los Angeles Times – How Jewish is Hollywood? – http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

    “Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.” ~ Nathan Abrams

    Triple-exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry – http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

    VIDEO – E. Michael Jones Interview – Notre Dame, Americanism, Enlightenment – http://youtu.be/W52gAyNAU4Y

    VIDEO – THE OTHER ISRAEL [full documentary] – http://youtu.be/IJxdIXgMGAI

    VIDEO – The Communist-Masonic Infiltration of America and the Catholic Church – http://youtu.be/CaauzugwziM

    “In this scholarly and deeply considered work, the author documents his provocative thesis that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament, but the newly formalized belief system of the Pharisees, which arose in Babylon with the commitment of the formerly oral “tradition of the elders” to writing, in the wake of the crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah and the destruction of the Temple. Basing his findings on authoritative Judaic sources, Hoffman demonstrates that Judaism is a man-made religion of tradition and superstition, which represents the institutionalized nullification of Biblical law and doctrine. Liberating the reader from the accumulated shackles of decades of misinformation, this book shows that Judaism’s God is not the God of Israel, but the strange gods of Talmud and Kabbalah, and the racial self-worship they inculcate.”

    See: Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman (.pdf): http://downloads.umu.nu/Books/Hoffmanstrange.pdf

    VIDEO – Judaism Discovered Michael Hoffman with Jeff Rense (Full Interview) – http://youtu.be/51aTCN3D8Ik

    See: Judaism Rediscovered by Michael Hoffman (.pdf) – http://downloads.umu.nu/Books/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20-%20Judaism%20Discovered%20(2008).pdf

    VIDEO – The Other Side of the Talmud Debate: Michael Hoffman Refutes a Defense of the Talmud – http://youtu.be/YGUcQI5fFD4

    AUDIO – Nostra Aetate What it really is E. Michael Jones – http://youtu.be/Xc4zhrG_x4I

    Libido Dominandi Sexual Liberation as Political Slavery – http://youtu.be/FwhFLdSqqv0

    • Michael

      Way to prove Father’s point. There’s a huge gap between thinking that Judaism is wrong about some things–which would be the position of, you know, every person whose religion isn’t Judaism–and all this crap you posted.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        By the by, a reason for my going after these folks is all the good priests & nuns who have helped me in my professional career with respect to moral issues. I simply can’t turn my back on them while these fiends attempt to ruin their Church. That’s not at all an exaggeration. If you read SSPX literature, you will see they want to overturn the Church itself.

        • Gerard

          LOL! Could you engage in any more histrionics? Your understanding of the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is truly pitiful and I feel sorry for you for trying to engage in anti-Catholic rhetoric and look so foolish.
          But to once again apply your arguments and standards to yourself and your identified compatriots, are there any “fiends” in the jewish comminity that someone can “go after” and not be labeled “nazi” or “anti-Semite”?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The Mayor of San Diego is assuredly one you can go after as you wish. Apparently, he is undergoing two weeks of intensive therapy before returning to work. Could you have him undergo two decades at one of your monasteries?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            One vital point. My disagreement with your ideas should not be confused with a hatred of you, whom I have never actually me. That may be hard to believe, but when one reads about murder regularly it’s amazing how good everyone else becomes. To see this, simply examine this prize from today’s Google murder trove:

            The atmosphere was mellow inside Yim’s house at 3121 Herriott Ave., Park testified, until Yim and Phan began debating the existence of God. Phan, who did not believe in God, began verbally harassing Yim about situations where God did not appear to be helping Yim. Eventually, Park testified during the trial, Phan asked Yim where God was at when Yim’s father collapsed and died of a stroke several years earlier. The mention of Yim’s father sparked outrage, Park testified, and resulted in Yim throwing his video game controller through his flat-screen television. Yim then disconnected from the group and sat on a chair in the dining room, Park said. Park said Yim sat on the chair for at least five minutes as he and Phan attempted to calm him. At one point, Park said, Phan pushed Yim as if to wake him up and tried to remind Yim that they were friends. Park said he and Phan even offered to give Yim cash for a new television. Frustrated by not getting a response, Park said Phan finally told Yim that if he was that upset he should just go get his gun. Yim waited five minutes before he walked 20 feet away into his bedroom, grabbed and loaded his AR-15 rifle, walked back and then began to fire at Phan.

            http://tinyurl.com/m2hw7cc

            You are an absolute angel compared with that.

  • Phil Steinacker

    Father, with all respect I must agree with others who’ve commented.

    No one cites the Southern Poverty Law Center without sacrificing all credibility, even undeservedly like yourself. Please don’t be duped by these propagandists for the left. In their eyes everyone in the right is racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist…did I leave anything out.
    I was going to comment about the reasonableness of a generalized statement that genuine anti-Semitism is unacceptable but I was shocked when you linked to a group that demonizes anyone on the right who takes a stand against any of the Left’s sacred cows.
    My own thinking is that anti-Semitism & racism may have been expressed by some of the SSPX or even some traddies remaining in the Church. Then again, some folks attending the Novus Ordo share those views as well but lack the high profile to get noticed. Of course, no on is tracking the “hate” groups on the left; they’ve pretty much marked off that territory as exclusively theirs.
    Please cite something with authentic credibility; otherwise, I’ll continue to believe the Internet makes this “problem” look far worse than it is.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      The SSPX is heretical, anti-semitic, vicious, & ultimately murderous.

      • steve5656546346

        Talk about vicious!!!

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Yes, desirous of violence against the Jews these folks are. Marcel Lefabvre was the worst clerical Nazi outside the former Yugoslavia, excluding Father Tiso. What is fascinating is that those French who were in concentration camps were quite the Jew hating bunch. That’s likely what made Lefabvre such a beast. He had to blame someone for his Dad’s suffering, & could not bring himself to oppose the Vichy regime, so he blamed the Jews instead.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      What about the Anti-Defamation League? Is that also an anti-Catholic organization to you?

  • MTMajor

    Wow, never heard of anti-semitism from “rad-trad” Catholics in any manner until yesterday / today’s articles from Fr.D. Nor from any Catholics, other than decades old historical references.

    Frankly, don’t know what a “rad-trad” is, perhaps our slightly misguided brothers and sisters of the SSPX?

    It’s interesting the things you read online. Fr.D might have experiences which are not common, which explains his qualified anecdotes. May God bless and protect him!

  • Robin

    You know, all these comments claiming that traditionalist are not anti-semitic have one thing in common. They do not acknowledge that anti-semitism is wrong. If they truly want to us to believe that traditionalists are not racists, then they should firstly agree that being racist is wrong. I can’t help but wonder why none of the comments admits that being an anti-semite is wrong. All I hear in these defensive comments is a quick, immediate denial of any anti-semitism, (at least, anti-semitism as defined by Fr. Longnecker and most of the civilized world) followed by some explanation of how their actions are justifiable and that the Jews really do kinda deserve it.

    Okay, lets say that yes, the Jews run the world, and that WW1 and 2 were started by them. That they all run the media. That they for some reason supported communism and all these other conspiracy theories. Even if all this were true, (which it most certainly is not) we are still called to LOVE them. Christ told us to love our enemies, and if people are so set on defining Jews as enemies, then, if these traditionalist truly are the followers of Christ, lets see them embracing the Jews with love. So what if the Jews rule the world (they don’t)? We still must love them.

    “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, unless of course they are the damned to hell Jews.” – things Jesus never said.

    Christ was a Jew, and that never changed.

    Father, I applaud you for this post.

    • Louis Tofari

      You mean like what Bishop Fellay said in 2009 in an interview with Famille Chrétienne” [French Catholic weekly] on January 31:

      “We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a
      crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people.
      We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely.

      “We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler.
      This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme
      level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, ‘I wished myself to
      be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!” (Rom. 9, 3).

      “The Jews are “our elder brothers” in the sense that we have
      something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the
      acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.

      “It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not wait for
      the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the
      30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome provide a very just
      position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned!

      “’Spiritually, we all Semites’, Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth
      which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, ‘we are sons of Abraham,’
      Saint Paul also affirms.”

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        Oh what horse feathers, Father Coughlin denied he was an anti-Semite over & over again. Guess what? He worked his fellow thugs to violent ends with a foul man named Curran in the North East. The same here. Fellay can squeal his caveats until the cows come home. Until he says Jews are not the enemy of the Church, he’s got murder on his brain.

        • Gerard

          There we go. It doesn’t matter what a Catholic says in reality or what they do or what they actually teach. An anti-Catholic bigot just makes up the allegations and when challenged they just ramp it up. Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, Atheist, Muslim, Satanist, they all take their shots with impunity.

          What they get ticked off about is a vigorous defense of the truth. I think what seems obvious is you hate is the truth. Catholic truth, the only real truth, the not the heretical phony Catholics Americanists as condemned by Leo XIII that don’t give a whit that you’ll go to Hell outside of the Church as long as you get along in the here and now. That is truly sad.

          Reading and citing crackpot smear pieces doesn’t excuse you from your hate, or redeem the falsehoods you spread.

          All of those sins are piling up on your soul and there’s only one way to relieve yourself of the terrible burden and consequences of those sins. Christ crucified.

          Study up on traditional Catholic moral teachings, not the liberal nonsense without magisterial authority. Pray for a light and become a Catholic. Secure your soul. You’ll never get a more charitable message sent to you than that.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Study up on where Paul Touvier was found to see what SSPX is really all about. Julius Streicher claimed to be a great pal of the Jews at his trial.

          • Gerard

            In other words, because you suspect everything negative without proof and you believe nothing when it comes to repentence, conversion and forgiveness, we should all believe you? Sorry, again, you display hatred, mercilessness and subjective ethics. That’s a shame because if that is the measure by which you deal with others, that will be the measure by which God deals with you at His judgement.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The NYT article proves Lefebvre a Nazi.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            For someone who says he has nothing against me, you seem to have a lot against me. Tell you what. You brought up the Christ killer business (you sure the heck did, you know). Whoever killed him was very, very bad. Any murder is terrible beyond belief. I’d do anything i could to prevent it. I really & truly mean that.

            What you are asking me is in the realm of the impossible, so why stop? Let’s say we could alter things as follows. Assume we had a time machine & could bring Jesus here, you know, whisk him out of harm’s way the day before he was arrested. I’d do it in an instant, if you gave me a time machine. Who would not do this?

            What music do you think he would enjoy listening to?

    • steve5656546346

      Stating the obvious is not required.

  • Carol

    Father, by using the adjective “radical” to describe traditional Catholics and by quoting the very anti-catholic SPLC, you have just lost a lot of credibility.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Might you prove SPLC to be anti-Catholic. There does exist anti-Catholicism, of course, but that organization is not one of those entities.

  • Michael

    To everyone who is offended because they think all traditionalists are being called anti-Semitic, please pay attention to this sentence from the SPLC article:

    Radical traditionalists are also unrelated to the many Catholics who call themselves “traditionalist” because they prefer the ancient Latin Mass, though radical traditionalists also prefer their liturgy in Latin.

    This article isn’t saying “If you like incense and Latin and you’re annoyed by Folk Masses and liturgical puppets then YOU HATE THE JEWWWWS!!!” This is talking about schismatics and sedevacantists.

  • David Finkelstein

    Reading through the responses I thought I’d add the point that honest disagreement between religions is normal and appropriate. It’s critical to make the distinction between reasoned disagreement which must exist because Jews reject Christ and unreasoned hatred. Hate is in itself sinful and, if directed at the innocent as it must be if applied to all within a broad category, it is also unjust. So it’s very easy, especially for the hypersensitive or the professionally offended at Southern Poverty and Law Center, to convict without trial or even consideration those who have authentic disagreements with Jews. Granted, in my experience, people who single out Israel for criticism hide behind this argument but even they (mostly on the secular left) deserve consideration before reflexive condemnation.

  • Bob B

    Father, any credibility this blog post might have on its own is blown away by the fact that you use the Southern Poverty Law Center articles as a serious source of information. It contains a great deal of distortion. You could have done much better than this. You should have known that this would damage your credibility if you had done any research on the group.

    • ponerology

      So what does the fact that the SPLC link was employed tell you about catholic bloggers in general? Because this isn’t the first time a catholic blogger has thrown the anti-semitic smear around …Shea is notorious for it as are some other recent convert bloggers. I find it smells a bit like an agenda with some significant funding behind it.

  • LeticiaVelasquez

    The Society of St Pius X has to distance themselves from Bishop Williamson who has been accused, correctly, of denying the Holocaust. He has caused some members to buy into his false beliefs that the Nazis were good Catholic soldiers who were misunderstood. I have encountered this attitude among SSPX members on Long Island and it alarmed me greatly as this group has the hallmarks of a cult. I was hopeful at the time (2007) that Pope Benedict would bring about a reconciliation and reunification but the stubborn insistence on such erroneous ideas will not permit it.

    • http://suscipesanctepater.blogspot.com/ Matt Roth

      They did. He was expelled from the Society.

    • Gerard

      None of what you wrote about concerning Bishop Williamson is true.

      Disputing numbers and methods of executions and deaths is not “denial” no matter how much the politically correct ghouls that want the death toll to be maximally high. Amazing. Question the orthodoxy of WWII dogma and there is a cry and multiple attempts to throw a man in jail. Deny the Divinity of the Son of God Himself and people are praised by certain Catholics for being “true to their conscience.”

      Williamson has stated about Hitler that he was a pagan and against Christ so your claim that he promoted Nazism as Catholic and laudable is wrong.

      You can check his interviews with Bernard Janzen to hear it for yourself.

      Re: Cult? Any of those “hallmarks” can be applied to the Church entire. When you try to fake your knowledge, do a little more than going to the anti-SSPX Loughnan sites.

      • LATRUN

        Not only should this not be a mud slinging contest, neither will clever erudition win the argument. For Gerard, every comment has its counter. Nut even he cannot counter the weight of the lives lost to the sad history he defends. Guilt, anyone?

        • Gerard

          Then stop slinging mud and make clear, concise points that can be addressed. Vague insinuations backed up with nothing is exactly what mud-slinging is.
          What sad history am I defending? I can defend Moses’ actions if you’re attacking them even though they are condemned by modern secular standards.
          He’s a Catholic saint you know.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            He did not actually exist.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The more he says, the more he shows himself. Never would I have imagined meeting a real person attempting to rehabilitate a Nazi criminal, Touvier, or an arm of Nazi government, the Vichy government. This M. Gerard has done for all of us to see. Lest you think the Vichy government was “forced” into its racial policies, consider these paragraphs:

          . . .
          [A] subset but it should stand by itself, is anti-Semitism, that the French Vichy regime — let me interject the fact that it’s only in November of 1942 that the Germans occupy the Vichy zone, because the resistance is mobilizing — that the French put in laws about Jews, depriving Jews of rights that the Germans didn’t even ask them to do, in terms of saying, “well, if you are Jewish because your grandmother or your grandfather was Jewish” — I don’t remember exactly the laws.

          “But the laws in some ways are even harsher than the infamous Nuremberg laws of the Reich. They put in even harsher laws, and they did it because they wanted to, not because the Germans were saying you do this; “better Hitler than Blum,” and that’s the way that Vichy wanted it, that’s the way that Vichy wanted it. And as the Jews disappeared, as they disappeared to Drancy and to these other places, how many priests said —and again I’m not being provocative; and I went to a Jesuit school, for better or for worse — “there go the Christ-killers, there they go,” in the little trains bouncing along, off to Drancy and then off to the camp. So, anti-Semitism becomes official policy. Pétain was a notorious anti-Semite. The High Command of the French Army was replete with anti-Semitism, had always been that way. Alfred Dreyfus, it was better that one Jew perish or die in Devil’s Island than it was that the army be — that its honor be compromised. That’s the way they viewed it; it was supported by the assumptionists and all these other people. So, that’s an important point as well. But there are other themes, too, that if you read things that they wrote at the time, that the collaborators wrote, if you read the proclamations of Pétain, . . .
          . . .
          http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/372/hist-276

          Professor Merriman is a Catholic. This is a transcript of his lecture. He feels Pope Pius XII bore some culpability, which I do not; his stance does not render him anti-Catholic.

          The main point, which is not in dispute is that the Vichy Regime was an arm of Nazi government in its racial policies as respects Jews. For this reason, to lionize that regime (considered illegal by every French government since the war) or, worse, Petain, is to want to kill the Jews. There’s just no way out of that. One might condemn the acts of Nazis as vigorously as possible, but to fail to condemn the acts of the Vichy government while praising Petain is to then favor policies that killed Jews. The “Sophie’s Choice” analogy fails because the illegal Vichy government chose these monstrous actions.

  • LATRUN

    As a Jew, I have never seen such a classic example of anti-Semitism as appears in this thread.

    • Gerard

      Go to some Jewish sites and take a look at the anti-Catholicism. What you call “anti-semitism” is nothing compared to the hatred spewed at Catholics.
      And while you’re there and rebuke those whom you share ethnicity, religion, culture or secular views with.

      • LATRUN

        You are obviously not an historical savant. And your arguments become so much more convincing to your closed mind when you ignore the history of the church.

        • Gerard

          Instead of resorting to an ad hominem dodge, are you going to address the vile anti-Catholic hatred being promoted on contemporary “radical” jewish forums and websites? Is that your way of endorsing anti-Catholic bigotry and prejudice or are you a denier that it exists at all?

          Here’s a suggestion, instead of you hurling a series of arguable historical claims against my Church and me going on about defending my Church and being called names for it, how about if I allow you to educate me and tell me in your words about Jewish persecutions, bigotry and prejudice against Catholics in history and leading up to the present?

          Catholics respect confession and reconciliation, what they don’t respect is not taking responsibility for one’s own. “Pull the beam out of your own eye before trying to pull the splinter out of your brothers.”

          I’m not afraid of my ethnic and cultural heritage and it’s good and bad moments in history. I’m also not afraid of an honest evaluation of my Catholic patrimony and its goods in full view of the shortcomings, failures, betrayals and evils of its members. Can you honestly claim the same or do you deny any failings exist in any form of Judaism or ethnic and cultural jewish communal gatherings?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The Orthodox Jewish condemnation of homosexuality is obscene & beneath contempt to me. It’s belief that masturbation is a form of murder is risible. The idea that men should have authority over women is also, to my eye anachronistic. There. I have found fault with Judaism. Are you satisfied?

          • Gerard

            I was asking Latrun to cite historical events in which Catholics have been subject to persecution by Jews either cultural or religious. I didn’t ask for personal opinions about sectarian post-Christian jewish religious beliefs.

          • LATRUN

            What is the purpose of a contest to see who can throw the most mud?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The purpose is to misuse history. No individual person today bears guilt for what people did centuries ago. If you read Ezekiel 18, you will see that not even the child of the offender bears the offender’s guilt. Who, for example can blame this man for his father’s actions?

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/29/justice/castro-son-interview/

            Individuals differ from organizations, one reason being the latter must adjust their notions to what has happened; but no German born after 1935, say, can be held responsible for what the Nazi fiends did, & no Japanese person born after 1935 can be blamed for what Imperial Japan did. Surely this can be recognized without forgetting how terrible the acts of both fascist powers were. Gerard here wants to start a polemic about activities from centuries before SSPX because that way he can perhaps get people to forget the real focus of attention. Don’t let him do this.

          • Gerard

            Hey Latrun, is the one who keeps vaguely talking about some “sad history” of my Church. The inference being that the Church has one-sidedly persecuted helpless jews all through history. I want him to be specific and tell me if there are any parallel “sad histories” in his religion or ethnic or social culture (however one describes the many varieties of grouping that all claim the term “jews.” )

            BTW, Your parameters of who can be held responsible is ridiculous by the way. Someone born in 1934 CAN be held responsible for war crimes? I’ve never heard of the fearsome baby nazis of WWII. But I’m sure a tele-movie will be coming out shortly.

            I know the unadulterated history of my Church and I know the Black Legends as well. I’m not afraid of admitting certain Churchmen were evil and did many and varied wrongs. But if you or Latrun think you’re qualified to lecture me, I want you to show the same credibility with regards to your own community, culture and religion. Unless you think all jews, anyone who claims to be a jew everywhere is a perfect angel and harbors no ill will towards Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. if that’s the case, just state that and we’ll know the mentality that we’re dealing with.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If you want to say anyone born after 1934, that’s fine with me. The mere exclusion after 1935 does not contradict that in any fashion.

            You seem to keep saying things about old history, not me. Everyone was rotten by our standards if you go back centuries. There are evil Jews, assuredly so. Not only Dutch Schultz, but also Meyer Lansky, Moe Greenberg, & Bugsy Seigel were very bad guys. Sometimes, its funny how stupid very smart people are. Take for example these rabbis who worked magic with honorable New Jersey mayors.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124835404608875685.html

            It’s hard to single out which Jews hate Catholicism, which Jews hate Protestantism, which Jews hate Islam, which Jews hate Buddhism, which ones hate Hinduism & so forth & so on; mere prejudice never makes news unless the person who is prejudiced is a public figure. Rest assured that for any particular group, you will find a Jew somewhere who is prejudiced against it. One would surely have to include Rabbi Rabbi Ovadia Youssef as a baddie.

            Now then. I’ve done exactly what you requested. Why can’t you admit Lefebvre was a Nazi?

          • Gerard

            No. I didn’t ask for white collar criminals or gangsters who just happened to fit into some kind of jewish identity. I was asking for anti-Catholic jews. You assume they exist and state they are hard to find. Why can’t they be singled out readily? What do you call them? How do you distinguish them from other jews? And I can tell you this, any non-jew who repeats your statement, “Rest assured that for any particular group, you will find a Jew somewhere who is prejudiced against it.” would be piled on with the hammers of hell and condemned as an anti-semite. So, either your statement is wrong, or there is something wrong societally with telling the truth.

            As far as LeFebvre being a Nazi, I don’t admit it because I don’t believe it. I haven’t seen any evidence of it and his transmission of the faith, his family history and the lack of any condemnation by his enemies is indicative of it not being true. Had he seriously been allied with Nazism, it would have been manifested and condemned by every enemy of tradition in the Church as well as allies and traditional Catholics everywhere.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Well, it’s hard to know what to say to you. What you appear to be looking for is similar statements seen in this fine speech that fiend Father Coughlin gave 1938.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVMK4pyB_YM

            20,400,000 Christians killed by Jews! That vicious lie, which was in part used against Jews in Boston, with the encouragement of fellow pig Curran. Note that the thug says he “opposes” the Nazis.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh really? Then how does one explain the rat line to Argentina? If everyone opposed Nazi’ism, Hudel would not have gotten away with it. In fact, it was Nazi’s like Lefebvre who were accessories to Nazi war criminals. In any case, you have not produced a shred of evidence to contradict material presented to you. Here’s a nice article on Father Coughlin for you.

            http://www.fathercoughlin.org/father-coughlin-anti-semitism.html

            Note that famous Catholics wanted him shut down:

            Father Coughlin soon found he had competition. Monsignor John A. Ryan, another nationally known priest, turned on Coughlin after Coughlin’s shunning of Roosevelt and increasingly anti-Semitic viewpoints. Joseph P. Kennedy, Roosevelt, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, and Bishop Francis Spellman continuously worked to get the Vatican to silence Coughlin. In 1936, Coughlin was ordered silent by the Vatican.

            ______

            You ever hear of that guy Pacelli? Obviously a nobody.

            He was also a hero in . . . Nazi Germany!

            _________

            Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitism made him a hero in Nazi Germany, where newspapers ran daily, stating that “America is not allowed to hear the truth.” Some of the American public shared Coughlin’s views, and 2,000 supporters gathered and marched in New York, protesting the migration of Jewish refugees from Hitler’s camps. These protests were not short-lived; they went on for several months, and Coughlin embraced his supporters.

            ________

            Well.Time for you to stand up for your principles. Do you agree or disagree that Father Coughlin was a murderous pig?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Of course. In sum, you want Jews to tell you about how Jews persecuted the vast majority. That really never happens anywhere. No minority not in actual power oppresses a majority. That’s because the government is not in their hands. So your desire for moral equivalence is false.

          • Gerard

            You seem to want to redefine “persecution” when it ill suits you. It must be by a government? It must be a majority? I guess Apartheid never happened in S. Africa? Are the lies endorsed by a number of jewish leaders about Pope Pius XII not a form of persecution? How about collaboration with another? What if a powerful gov’t. say The Roman Empire gave special privileges to one group of religious and gained their cooperation with regard to persecution of another religious group? They would be apostates in their reckoning in some cases and what if this went on for hundreds of years? That would be a “sad history” just as much in the past as other events that we should “never forget.”

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            In honor of Father Lombardo, who condemned Fellay,

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qukRwWSXYXw

  • Luke Togni

    If the angelqueen forums were still accessible you would find plenty of proof that there are some anti-semitical trads. It is unfortunate, but it does exist.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    High Culture Traddies. Low Culture Progressives. Same mindset.

  • Michael

    I don’t get it, you involve yourself with a group (group, your word) that is unreasonable in their thinking and you write a blog post giving criticism where non was asked then you expect this same group to act reasonable with their response to you. Do you expect them to see your way of thinking like turning on a light switch. Come on, you’re just stirring the pot. Like throwing rocks at the bees nest. Jesus got to write in sand because He is God, but why do you feel the need to? Just curious

  • windjammer

    Father, you blew it on this one. SPLC as a credible reference? Really? Whatever happened to “admonish sinners”? Are we not required to do so? Guess that’s also no no in today’s world of PC as well. “Racism” is the pejorative of choice when one needs to shut up one’s opponent when they have facts and reason against your feelings and emotions. Ultimately, It has become a cliche. It’s one of those last resort “stop you in your tracks” words. Can’t be against anything today without being accused of “Racism”. The latest is the “Trayvon Martin” case.

  • Romulus

    Quite right, Father. “Some” traditionalists ARE anti-semitic. Also, “some” bald-headed men are anti-semitic. Furthermore, “some” priests are drunks, or worse. Also, “some” motorcycle riders are drug dealers. And yet we do not see bald-headed men or priests or motorcycles riders as such, systematically shamed into denouncing these evils, lest the same be imputed to them.

    Do you not see what a meaningless, mischief-making way of speaking this is? Do you not understand that we live in an age of muddy, confused thinking, and that evildoers have always relied on logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks to cultivate lies in the minds of the unwary, the stupid, and the intellectually lazy? Do you not understand that a spiritual war is raging all around and even within us?

    In this of all times, can you explain why it is those devoted to the traditional liturgy that must be singled out, suspected of harboring intolerable evil in their midst?

    • Tim

      So where is the logical fallacy in saying that certain extreme groups of radical traditionalists are anti-semitic? Fr. Longnecker never said “all” traditionalist. He made a point several times over several posts that he is referring only to a certain portion of traditionalists.

      • Romulus

        1. Because he (and another Patheos blogger) have announced it’s a moral duty for ALL trads, as trads, to denounce anti-semitism in their midst — implying that anti-semitism is an aberration peculiar to traddery.

        2. Because if #1 is not what is meant to be implied, why are trads specifically called out in this ritual shaming? If the same “someness” applies in a great many categories, it’s a fallacy to direct attention to just one.

        • ponerology

          Agree with all that…so what does this tell us about the agenda online and elsewhere-as we keep spinning around like tops?

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    So you are saying traditional Catholics are anti-Semites, because you linked to the SPL. Very sad. I suppose the New Testament is anti-Semitic literature, too? Perhaps you should become a Catholic yourself? or a Jew?

  • Marjorie Louise Jeffrey

    I have to say that I found your post very reasonable (“some”, of course, is not the same as “all”), until I realized that the links you cited were from the $PLC. Really, Father. This simply destroys your credibility. I hope that you’ll retract your usage of these “Intelligence Reports”.

  • flankus7

    Dear father, it is really too bad you don’t know anything about the religion you profess.

  • thebigbc

    The SPLC is an anti-hate group. They are the group the FBI turns to keep track of “hate groups.” The “rad trads” referenced are a schismatic group that is anti-Jew (please note the examples noted as members – Mel Gibson and his father.) They are not discussing the Catholic Church, but a small group of schismatics. Please read everything posted in the article before you start getting you blood pressure up and accusing others of being anti-Catholic.

    • Romulus

      The SPLC is a political pressure group that agitates vigorously, to shape public opinion and policy to the form they wish it to have.

  • Scipo_a

    Is there a problem in trad cath rank with an anti-jewish sentiment? The answer is clearly yes. But there are other deep seated problems too, and they are all related and all have the same root as far as I have been able to tell.

    These problems are, but not limited to:

    1. America hate
    2. US Constitution hate
    3. Pro-Monarchy
    4. Distrubutism
    5. Frumpy cloths
    6. Strict roles for men and women
    7. Dressing up because the Victorians did, or you saw it in a Cary Grant
    movie
    8. Israel hate
    9. Obsession vs Zionism
    10. Calling conservative
    folks Neo-cons (neo-con becoming shorthand for a certain religious
    minority)
    11. Thinking Germany got a bad rap in WW2
    12. HolocaustTM denial
    etc.
    13. Using words like “Bankster”
    14. Arguing like any particular turd
    on any one of the 3 or 4 sanctoforums
    15. Moving to a third-world pit
    because your neighbors are not Catholic enough and the US is evil…even thought
    the third world pit just gave over some governing power to the
    mohams…
    16. Thinking St. Thomas Aquinas NEVER made a mistake in his
    writings…(he made two I know of already)
    17. Geocentrism is a viable theory
    or even fact of astronomy
    18. sanctimony, and more…

    The root of these issues can be traced to one man, Bishop Williamson, who was in charge of the US seminary for some time. Fortunately he has been removed from the SSPX, a great organization, but the poison he put in place will take years to remove. Trads now more than ever are conspiracy theorists and anti-liberty… all from a purposeful misreading of what liberty means vis-à-vis Vat2 which is then purposely misconstrued with the religious liberty in the US constitution…Vat2 has it wrong and then some trads conflate that with our second amendment…anyway it is a big old world view mess…and there will be no fixing it in short order…no matter how many times you try to post reason on the various trad for a…you will not make a single dent…and the folks you hoped were only a little screwed up just get worse…it is that way on Fisheater, and SusipeDomine…not to mention the absolut pit of trad fora….Sanctoforum (which will not be named since it is so foul with hate of all things good.) The sad thing is that this is not what most trads are like or were. Trads before 2000 were almost all patriotic liberty lovers to a tea…now…you’ll find a bunch of whacos…which is one reason it is almost impossible to introduce good folks to the Mass….because you CANNOT go to the novus ordo church….and then there are so many sanctimonious pricks at trad chapels….makes it tough to proselytize…

    And just so everyone knows…I am SSPX/SSPV all the way…no some NO rainbow bliss person bent on sullying the trad name….trads have already done that to us…I see many of you have already fessed up in the comments….and you don’t even see it…sad.

    • steve5656546346

      I’m sorry, but I doubt your veracity. You paint a picture totally foreign to my experiences. But the clincher was “I am SSPX/SSPV al the way”: that’s not possible. Those two groups are totally at odds with each other.

      • Scipo_a

        You say I paint a picture foreign to your experience. One must wonder how much experience you have in that case…is it just a few weeks and only at chapel? or is it years and years with various groups Mass sites and online chat in the forums. Because if it is just at chapel, I grant you, you will not run into too many outwardly crazy types. There will be the loud conspiracy contingent. which is sad but tolerable to a point. But if you are trying to pull the wool over folks eyes about the sickness that is clearly running through trad circles which the article above brings up (with a poor choice of reference I grant you) then you are being dishonest at best. So the ball’s in your court….you online much in the forums or not?…..because I can always post link after link from the three biggest trad forums which will astonish a normal soul, I’d rather not since, as I pointed out in another post above, these people are nothing more than a loud minority and doing so would just cause scandal…really if the OP had wanted to be credible he would have done it instead of using a hate group like the SPLC as a reference….that’s almost like using Mein Kampf to prove there Jews are bad folks..

        As for the SSPX and the SSPV being”totally” at odds, here you have no idea what you are talking about. So it is likely that you either are not fully a trad or just do not understand the positions of both groups fully. I have been trad since 1998 or 1999 and have spent huge amounts of time on the forums and looking into all the trad organizations. The fight between the SSPX and SSPV is a very minor one, it was just the use of the 1956 missal as oppsed to the 1962. Since then the SSPV has added sedeprivantist which really fits in with the SSPX as well but not officially. With the SSPV it is official.

        Lastly, have you spent much time on FE or CI…? And when?

  • RoxanneRoxanadana

    Father, as a Jew I can honestly say that being a traditionalist Catholic does not imply being a Jew hater. A friend who is a traditionalist invited me, knowing I am Jewish, to his daughter’s wedding.

    A few observations might be wise for Jews attending such affairs in the future. First, the head cover provisioned at the door is not for the man, but the woman. Second, Latin is every bit as well understood by traditionalist Catholics as Hebrew is by Orthodox Jews. The result is pretty much the same. For the first few minutes the strange sounds emanating from the leader fascinate, being a foreign language no one, pretty much in America anyways, understands. After that interest passes, boredom soon sets in, beginning at the rear of the room & proceeding forwards until it includes the 95% of the attendees who really don’t speak that foreign tongue as a second language. The final result is that, after having gone through that ceremony, one feels forgiven of minor sins, as one has gone through a punishment of sorts for the sake of Almighty God. This made the wedding party all the merrier.

    In any case, the Society of St. Pius IX (or whatever) was definitely a Jew hating bunch. Pope Benedict nailed them, to his great, great credit. Traditionalists in general, by contrast, are not Jew haters. If you will accept a suggestion from a Jew on this matter, use the privilege that Judaism does not afford. Judaism forbids the use of electronic devices on Sabbath, but Catholicism does not. What you might wish to do is project super titles on a screen in front of the worshipers, sort of like they have at operas.

    • Gerard

      Any other anti-Catholic digs you’d like to get in while you’re trashing sacred things? It’s really amazing how you’ve universalized your own limited experience in a limited setting but you’re somehow capable of knowing the interior disposition of all of those people. I for one am glad that Pope Benedict “nailed” the SSPX by lifting the excommunications of the four bishops. He really nailed’em with that one.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        It is not hard to see boredom appearing on people’s faces. That is fairly obvious, don’t you think? You can see the urge to yawn &, perhaps, even multiple yawns (which I did).. SSPX is definitely a bunch of Jew hating pigs. To see that, read this:

        http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/radical-traditional-catholicism/the-radical-traditionalist

        If you loved Father Coughlin, you too are a vicious Jew hating pig.

        • steve5656546346

          Any link to the Souther Poverty Law Center is inadmissible and discrediting.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, really now? Did you read the part about Father Coughlin? OK. Here’s the ADL on the same gang of heretics.

            http://archive.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm

            If you are going to talk about anti-Catholic, why not talk about the real stuff? The writings of Luther, especially Bondage of the Will, are about as anti-Catholic as one can get. His precis on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, which you can access here http://self.gutenberg.org/uploads/pdf/20110830030704babylonian_captivity.pdf

            is assuredly anti-Catholic.

            There’s also this fellow named John Calvin, whose anti-Catholicism can be read here:

            http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin?show=worksBy

            Now the groups who believe these persons are called Protestants. Pope Francis is complaining, in Brasil, about losses of Catholics to Protestant denominations..You can bet that the millions gone from Catholicism have not signed up at the local synagogues. So why does not SSPX come out and say “Protestants are a bunch of anti-Catholic, boot licking toadies”?

            Instead SSPX calls Jews the enemies of Catholic Church. That’s despicable. There are only 14,700,000 (if memory serves) Jews on a planet of over 7,000,000,000 human beings.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Why is that? Is it because they do not like people who commit violence against those who are different than they are? After all, that was pretty much the basic stance of Lefabvre, with his support of Vichy France–which is the same as supporting Nazi Germany. The basic item on the list was killing Jews.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Any problems with the ADL?

        • Gerard

          My, my, my. You seem to have issues. You’re flailing about making rash judgements, guilts by association and anything else you can think of it seems. Fatique can often be mistaken for boredom since traditional Catholics actually put work into their worship practices. But your comments are pretty unmistakable. I won’t go so far as to call you a Catholic-hating pig, though your visceral and obvious hatred and desire to incite hatred is manifest while your accusations against the SSPX are vague and indiscriminate.

          Drowning someone in spittle does not mean you win an argument or change a lie to the truth.

        • Scipo_a

          Using a hate group like the SPLC to make a point is like trying to use mein kampf to prove something about the jewish people…just sayn….very foolish. As for the rest I pretty well addressed that above…SPPX equals only “love thy neighbor, and the TLM always and forever”….nothing more…

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Let’s just say we got different world views. Folks like you love Metzger in general. I’ll say this for Fellay. He really wants a certain lifestyle (the voice of God on earth) & is willing to do whatever it takes to get there. Sort of like this fellow with respect to the mob, a Jewish guy, actually:

            http://www.biography.com/people/dutch-schultz-236042?page=1

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            SSPX = gas chambers for inferior races

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        He actually did. The SSPX is basically a flat world organization of hatred.

        • Gerard

          As I thought, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Where do you get your anti-Catholic bigotry from? Do me a favor, and point me to some of your favorite anti-Catholic websites. You see, as a Catholic, I’m particularly qualified to spot anti-Catholic bigotry. You’ve got it in spades, so instead of spending too much time debunking your unsubstantiated assertions and your hate speech, I want to find the fountainhead of your prejudice.

        • jeff

          Let’s be fair here. +Williamson was relieved of all duties as soon as he made those disturbing comments on Swedish TV. He has now been formally expelled from the Society.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It is not Williamson, but the SSPX that is the problem. The start of the SSPX was Lefabvre, a Nazi Catholic of the worst sort. The only worse ones were folks like Hudel & those priests who did the killing at Jasenovac.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    The SPLC is itself a left-wing, militantly Christophobic hate group.

    See:

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0215-rise_of_militant_christophob.htm

    Satire of SPLC’s status as itself a hate group:

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-a-cnn-splc.htm

    It’s astonishing that this priest relies on the execrable SPLC to buttress his attack.

  • Chris

    Why has it become fashionable amongst the “conservative” crowd to bash traditionally minded folks as of late, particularly with the accusation of anti-Semitism? And how many is “some” traditionalists? And what proof is cited for ascertaining that such attitudes exist in any degree? Are we to believe that there might be anti-Semitic persons only amongst traditionalist folks so that they need to be singled out? There are also racist persons that could probably be found in neo-con circles, or amongst your average Joe lukewarm Catholics, charismatics, etc., and particularly amongst certain ethnic groups at your average parish. Yet strange how there are no pieces classifying and bashing these groups. And it is not the traditional folks who present a problem for the Faith, the Church. There is probably more damage being done to the Faith by almost every group than by traditionalists.

  • Guest

    “The fact is that the ugly whiff of racism and Jew hatred clings to the radical traditionalist Catholic movement”

    Do me a favor! You just blew away all your “calm down” remarks in the intro with that comment.

  • Oudeis_Oudenos

    What is the traditional definition of an anti-Semite? It is, or course, someone whom Jews hate.

    Father, if you are wary of people who cannot take the slightest criticism, you should probably be very wary of Jews, who have many organizations and allies to immediately stamp out even the slightest hint of criticism or merely unflattering statements.

    As a Catholic, I am keenly aware of our history, and the dealings between Jews and Christians. Please realize that the story is not the one-sided version that Jews and liberals tell, to wit, that Christianity has been one long unmerited persecution of innocent Jews. Faithful Catholics and their kings (and queens) have been compelled several times throughout history to expel Jews from their realms for subversive activities. England expelled the Jews in the 1200s, the French in the 1300s, the Spanish in the 1400s. Perhaps our people–our spiritual predecessors–had cause to ask these Jews to leave, something I cannot recall being done to any other people by our ancestors. Was it Christian bigotry? Or perhaps unmitigated Jewish bigotry against Christians? Might our forefathers have had some real insight into this people? But consider: Even in Spain, Jews were permitted to remain provided that they made sincere conversion to the Catholic faith. This is an example not of bigotry, but of prudent wariness coupled with true charity.

    If you deem prudent wariness coupled with charity to be antisemitism, God help us indeed, good Padre. No sincere Traditionalist hates Jews. Our Faith permits us only to hate moral evil. Rather, the vast majority of Traditionalists likely hold the selfsame views concerning Jews and Jewish issues as you do. Nevertheless, there are some such as myself, who notice the persecution of our Faith by Jewish organizations such as the ADL, the SPLC, the ACLU, and that Jewish individuals figuring prominently in media, whether that be news or entertainment, who can be linked again and again and again to programming and articles which disparage, mock, and persecute our Faith and our faithful. Some folks like me are more wary and skeptical of Jews, and are willing to point out where Jews have acted against Christian gentile peoples.

    For this, it seems, you call us anti-Semites, and seek to chastise and expel the sheep of your flock, instead of stand as a shepherd in our defense.

    I cannot say that I personally know many (if any) Traditionalists who think as I do concerning Jews, but I will confidently maintain that there is no necessary connection between Catholic Traditionalism and irrational hatred of Jews. There are probably far more self-hating Jews than Jew-hating Traditionalist Catholics. So, Father, your statement that just “some” or a “few” Traditionalists are anti-Semitic, seems an imprudent pot-stirring, when your time might better be spent calling out the media, the culture, and the state for its anti-Catholicism.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      The persecution of Blacks, in terms of slavery, occurred for over a thousand years as well. Care to argue that it was not all one sided on that score? Good gosh, we Jews were always a very small minority & still are. Human morals advance. Where slavery was once universal in all lands, supported by Muslim, Christian, & Jew alike, it now no longer exists. Where women were viewed universally as not fully human, that notion is now simply non existent in the West. A similar line of advance occurred with Judaism, specifically with Nostre Aetate, the greatest civil rights document since Amendment XIII of the US constitution, which banned slavery.

      • Gerard

        1) Slavery of all types does still exist in the world and in Africa.

        2) The history of slavery shows that it was not all one-sided.

        3) Human morals do not advance, look at the horror of abortion, the nominalism used to attack the family unit by redefining marriage. All moral indicators show degeneration not advancement.

        4) Nostra Aetate did not change anything in the teaching of the Catholic Church, it even says what it teaches has always been taught by the Church.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          1. Do you find slavery to be, in general, a good thing or bad thing? To me it was almost entirely repulsive. That

          To me, slavery’s abolition was the greatest second milenium advance in Western civilization. It does still exist, but not on the scale of the “good old days”. There is no trans-Atlantic slave trade any more. Neither are there in Islam the horrific slave markets of those rotten times. Surely, all of us, Christian, Jew, & the like, can see that things have greatly improved.

          2. Morals have vastly improved; to study Church history is to see that. One strategy persons with an anti-Catholic agendas possess is to taking activities many centuries ago, & applying modern standards to them. All such practices do is prove the speaker unable to appreciate history. This is so especially today, when one realizes that no one any more can conquer the planet as was done with Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan. Those Jihadists are, for all their world conquest desire, simply petty murderers. Individually, of course, humans remain liable to sin as ever; these sins, however, are much, much less egregious.

          3. Nostre Aetate, by officially stating that Jews today are not responsible for Christ’s death, viz:

          Even though the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (see Jn 19:6), neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion.

          Yes, that is the proper stance, the one that really mattered. Alack & alas, that was not recognized before this vital document. Such false notions resulted in part yielded the Holocaust.

    • LATRUN

      So locked in your own little moral cubicle.

  • Dick Prudlo

    This priest’s own tradition speaks yards in understanding his displeasure with real Catholicism. He likes Cranmer’s table, the iconoclast recreational worship houses, and, oh yes, the demeaning of 2000 years of Tradition. Perhaps, more importantly, the “name calling” that is essential today in describing the only group that gives a damn about truth, love, and the wisdom of the Catholic Faith once taught everywhere; but practically no where today.

  • santodomingo

    The very term “antisemitism” is ridiculous. Most modern day jews are not racially semites; they are cuacasians. Arabs ARE all semites, yet if they speak out against the racist state of Israel, they are accused of antisemitism ?!?

    Let´s say it just one more time: judaism and zionism are two different things. You do not have to hate the jews to hate zionism. You do not have to be a jew to be a zionist, and you do not have to be a zionist if you are a jew.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      That’s why I use the term Jew hatred. The philosophy behind SSPX leads to the notion that all Jews should be gassed. Being Jewish, i do not particularly like that notion.

      • Gerard

        Again, that is purely anti-Catholic hate speech on your part. Using some vague notion of jewish identity does not preclude you from engaging in what you accuse others of. It actually comes off as a kind of transference.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          When did I say anyone was guilty of crucifying Christ who is alive today?

          • Gerard

            I don’t understand what you’re stating with the above statement. Could you rephrase? I was addressing your hateful non-sequitur. I seriously doubt you understand Catholic Thomistic philosophy or the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. To say that either of them leads to or has lead to persecution of Jews is absurd and simply throwing mud on your part.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Well, St. Thomas did say that Heretics were far worse than Jews, you know, & SSPX is, well, a heretical claque.

          • Gerard

            You keep spreading the calumny that the SSPX is heretical.
            Care to back that up by educating us on exactly what heresy the SSPX is teaching? And Aquinas was correct a heretic who had the truth embraced it and ultimately rejects it is in a worse situation concerning his Baptismal mark and his lack of ignorance. His pains in Hell will be worse than someone who never had been given the sanctifying grace of Baptism.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana
          • Gerard

            I can’t believe you posted a link to the Dimond brothers.
            That is hilarious. The SSPX are not heretical. Archbishop Muller is the one with the curious issues with his theology, not the SSPX who rely on St. Thomas Aquinas as their guide as instructed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Muller as a theologian can go wrong, St. Thomas does not lead one astray.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            There are four links there. All you have done is to insult one link without any evidence & claim another might be wrong. You have no real argument with Muller, so you lose. How can you say St. Thomas is incapable of error? Yes, he was likely the most brilliant man of the second millenium, but he was a man, for all that. Who besides heretics does this?

            But Touvier was taken up by the rising traditionalist, or integrist, movement of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, now 83, who claims that his is the only authentic church, while the Roman Catholic Church is made up of ”heretics” and ”Satanists.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/01/magazine/l-affaire-touvier-opening-old-wounds.html?pagewanted=7&src=pm

            FDR & Pope Pius XII have in common the status of being corpses After 50 years, intellectual attacks upon the dead simply do not count as attacks, in and of themselves, upon the Church or the United States. Combined with other things, such as suggestions that the whole Church set up the gas chambers or the US fell into communism by beating the fascists, of course, matters differ.

            Compared with a high level Archbishop’s saying the Church comprises Satanists, the worst statements about Pius (again quite bizarre to me) are minor irritants.

          • Gerard

            You are free to defend the Dimond bros. if you want. I won’t vouch for their logic or their catholicity. All that tells me is that you don’t know what links you are putting up. Everyone is a heretic to the Dimonds.

            RE: Archbishop Muller, his book on Dogmatic Catholicism contains suggestions of heterodoxy concerning miracles that are a part of the Deposit of Faith. He has been backpedaling vigorously in trying to explain his modernistic writings away.

            RE: St. Thomas Aquinas: He is THE Theologian of the Catholic Church. Numerous Popes over the centuries and including the recent Popes have consistently endorsed his teaching.

            http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-education/popes-st-thomas

            Bl. John Paul II said: “[T]he Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology….

            “[T]he Magisterium has repeatedly acclaimed the merits of Saint Thomas’ thought and made him the guide and model for theological studies.… The Magisterium’s intention has always been to show how Saint Thomas is an authentic model for all who seek the truth. In his thinking, the demands of reason and the power of faith found the most elevated synthesis ever attained by human thought, for he could defend the radical newness introduced by Revelation without ever demeaning the venture proper to reason.”

            Pius XI said that “indeed, We so approve of the tributes paid to his almost divine brilliance that we believe Thomas should be called not only Angelic but Common or Universal Doctor of the Church. As innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his doctrine for her own.… It is no wonder that the Church has made this light her own and has adorned herself with it, and has illustrated her immortal doctrine with it … It is no wonder that all the popes have vied with one another in exalting him, proposing him, inculcating him, as a model, master, doctor, patron and protector of all schools … Just as it was said of old to the Egyptians in time of famine: ‘Go to Joseph, so that they should receive a supply of corn to nourish their bodies, so to those who are now in quest of truth We now say: ‘Go to Thomas’ that they may ask from him the food of solid doctrine of which he has an abundance to nourish their souls unto eternal life.”

            And you keep quoting the article that says that Archbishop LeFebvre said his was the only authentic Church. He never said that and quite the opposite he said and acted upon. He helped many groups not under the organizational structure of the SSPX.

            To attack Pope Pius XII is to use Papa Pacelli to attack the Church. Let’s not fool ourselves. Lies which are attacks about Pacelli’s actions or inactions and leadership are linked with attacks on the Church. You can’t attack the head without attacking the Body.

            It was Pope Paul VI that stated that the “smoke of Satan” had entered into the Church and into the highest levels. If LeFebvre said anything, it was no different than Paul VI admission. LeFebvre wasn’t lying. Paul VI wasn’t lying but the attacks on Pius XII are lies. Painful truths are irritants, lies are attacks.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            St. Thomas was absolutely brilliant, but he lived almost one thousand years ago. His proof of God’s existence by means of the first mover, for example, is simply not credible any more; you can read Steven Hawking to find out how the universe could be explained without reference to a divine mover.

            Why would you expect anything else of something written that long ago? Surely contextualization is required. You know, that’s true of New Testament texts. The Old Testament says nasty things about Israel quite frequently. The point is that those comments reference the people of that time, not their descendants. The mistake made, & it was done for quite self-interested reasons, is to blame the descendants. That is a big, bad no no.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            A small, important point.

            ad hominem “attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg

            The term is not synonymous with imprecation, slander, or libel, although one may use those in ad hominem arguments; what renders ad hominem argument invalid is absence of response to the expressed ideas. Your arguments against the DImond Brothers & the theologian Muller are ad hominem arguments because they do not address their expressed arguments.

            Had I said “the reason you can believe SSPX heretical is because the following authorities say so.” You would be correct in saying “these are not authorities.”

            It is possible to unintentionally misread my words to say that. A clarification. What was intended:

            The arguments provisioned in these links lead to the conclusion that SSPX is heretical..

            If you can prove the arguments flawed, you win. Do so now, please.

          • Gerard

            Prove the arguments have merit. Name the heresy. You seem to have read them. You’re putting the burden of proof on me to prove your negative claim. Make your case. You claim to have the read articles. You said I would find information leading to the conclusion of heresy from the links. There is no heresy applicable in those sources.

            You cite the Dimond Bros as an authority when they have no authority. They don’t even cite authorities correctly.

            Fr. Z link is just Bp. Muller making vague statements. That’s a far cry from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos saying the SSPX is not heretical nor schismatics on numerous occasions.

            James Larson conflated the idea of papal supremacy as being an irresistibility to the Papacy when Vatican I clearly distinguishes “their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,” true obedience being the qualifier according to Aquinas’ threefold obedience.

            The Gutierrez article doesn’t cite any heresy either. It’s more of a ramble and doesn’t make any clarification on “religious liberty” as the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught it. Gutierrez doesn’t even realize he’s getting into trouble by going against Pope Gregory XVI’s “Mirari Vos” and ascribing it to the SSPX as if it’s their error.

            Again cite, the heresy. By contrast, I could at least tell you to read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma and the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas and tell you, you’ll find the Catholic Faith taught into those authoritative sources. You’d actually find the faith being explained in those sources. You’re by contrast trying to send me a on a wild goose chase to disprove something you haven’t proven.

            Prove your accusations, don’t point to a landslide of documents of dubious quality and no authority. You can name a heresy in one word.

            Do it.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Person Q can argue “X = Y” by providing links to arguments A,B,C, & D. Person R can argue “X≠Y” by:1) refuting arguments of A, B, C, & D or 2) providing links E,F,G, & H, which refute arguments of A,B,C & D. Should either act 1) or 2) be taken, a conversation can proceed about the merits of the assertions; Sans such action, person R loses the debate. You lose.

            Let’s return to this remorse business. Below is an example of a murderer who, unlike Touvier, actually did show remorse:

            During an emotional hearing Tuesday (Aug. 13) that brought many in the courtroom to tears, William Patrick Smith pleaded no contest to second-degree murder in the beating death and subsequent burning of an intellectually disabled man at the abandoned convent building in 2012.

            In a plea deal, the Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office
            agreed to drop the original charges of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, arson, conspiracy to commit arson and escape from jail.

            The 23-year-old instead entered a plea of no contest to murder in the second-degree for the killing of Christian Payton.

            Smith received the maximum sentence of 15 years
            in prison. He faced life plus 30 years in prison on the charges originally filed against him.

            In a tearful statement to the court before sentencing Tuesday, the victim’s brother said he felt the deal was
            lenient but offered the defendant an opportunity to redeem himself.

            “By allowing you to plea here today, the representatives of our society are showing you the mercy you did not
            show my brother,” Jeremy Payton said.

            Smith and 28-year-old Deborah Jaramillo were
            indicted in November for beating Payton to death, throwing him down a flight of stairs and cutting his face during a fight.

            The trio had gathered with other friends to eat
            pizza and drink rum at the abandoned convent building. After killing Payton, investigators alleged a third suspect only identified by the name “Cherokee” aided the two in burning the body. The blaze engulfed the building and more than two weeks passed before Payton’s remains were located in the debris.

            . . .

            Smith himself delivered brief, halting and emotional remarks before receiving his sentence.

            “I do not deserve forgiveness,” the defendant
            said, looking to his victim’s three family members in the gallery. “I’m really sorry for your brother and if I could bring him back, I would.”

            Prosecuting attorney Emilio Chávez called on Backus to issue the maximum 15 year sentence, acknowledging that even then Smith would be free by the time he reached his mid-30s.
            . . .

            “This is one of the most heinous crimes I have
            seen since I have seen on the bench,” Backus said before addressing Smith directly. “Go forth and remember the remorse you felt today.”

            http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_ee47af9a-052c-11e3-b3fb-0019bb2963f4.html

            Speaking for Touvier, what is your response to that?

          • Gerard

            Your links which you say lead to the conclusion that the SSPX promotes heresy has been dealt with directly. If you can’t refute what I addressed, and you can’t actually name the heresy you accuse the SSPX of, your claim of victory is absurd.

            Why should I speak for Touvier? I didn’t claim to speak for him. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy and rash judgment against him and anyone who doesn’t behave according to your selective and double standards. I don’t claim for you to speak for Caiaphas, yet you attribute guilt to anyone associated with your percieved enemies. SSPX, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith etc.

            God is Touvier’s judge, Caiphas’ judge, your judge and my judge. None of us can withstand His judgement, any of us can call on Him as Savior. Whether that happens or has happened in particular cases is none of our business. The good is found in the hope that even the worst of people repent and ask for mercy for offending God first before all others. If you can’t say that it would be a good thing for Caiaphas or Hitler or Stalin or Pope Alexander VI to have reached out to God and been saved in a way known only to God, it would be indicative of where your heart, ethics, mind and soul are. And that should be a wake up call. “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Avoiding bad acts is best; my preference is that anyone who desires to murder me avoid committing murder instead of killing me & repenting of it later. Hypothetical repentance is is worse than hypothetical avoidance. Had the military & political leadership of Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan been transported by magic for life imprisonment at the Federal Penitentiary in Marion IL in 1935, WWII would have been avoided & 60,000,000 lives saved.

            Criminal misconduct is humanly judged in courtrooms & in the court of public opinion. None put people in buckets of water & deem them Satanically possessed if they fail to drown at this time; Ad Extirpanda, while perhaps not the best possible replacement for such judicial proceedings, was a step forward.

            Lack of remorse on Touvier’s part is beyond debate unless you provide evidence to the contrary. Proclaiming mitigating factors defends the accused; by doing this you act as spokesperson for Touvier. Why attempt to rehabilitate a thrice-convicted Nazi war criminal?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Why pick on poor Pope Alexander VI, as opposed to any other Pope? His real nastiness, from our perspective, lay in his basic continuance of his predecessors permission to have hereditary slavery, but that’s simply being part of his time. Do speak on this. The poisonings are now quite suspect as being real.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            OK. Here is a quote:

            Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

            http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

            Note that denial of papal primacy is heresy, when a Catholic (which I am not) does this. The relevant definition of primacy here is # 3.

            pri·ma·cy [prahy-muh-see] Show IPA
            noun, plural pri·ma·cies for 2, 3.

            1. the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc.
            2. Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics . the office, rank, or dignity of a primate.
            3. Roman Catholic Church . the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as supreme bishop.

            Now naming bishops against the will of the Pope is definitely denying Papal Supremacy. Lefebvre’s denying papal supremacy by doing just that rendered him a heretic. QED.

          • Gerard

            Yeah…You’re jumping the gun here and confusing Papal Primacy for Papal Irresistibility. All disobedience is not unlawful or immoral nor is it a denial of primacy in essence.

            1) As Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos pointed out, a “schismatic” act does not necessarily mean a “schism” has occurred. And heresy is not absolutely always hand in hand.

            2) The SSPX would not have been requesting the Pope to exercise his primacy over the Church in order to end the crisis of faith going on in the wake of Vatican II and the years leading up to it. If they truly were schismatic, they would deny the Pope his authority to do such things as the Orthodox do.

            3) Aquinas: “Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?Objection 3: Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.

            Reply to Objection 3: Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.

            Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

            4) The first Pope was resisted by St. Paul the Apostle:
            ” But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Galatians 2:11)

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Because Lefebvre appointed archbishops against the expressed wish of the Pope, he denied Papal Primacy.
            Concerning argument 1, the absence of schism does not refute the existence of heresy.

            Concerning argument 2, requests of a Pope, however just, do not justify naming bishops in defiance of expressed Papal wishes; the denial of Papal Primacy, no matter what the requests are, remains heresy.

            Concerning argument 3, nothing in the St. Thomas quote permits denial of Papal Primacy. One should not sacrifice one’s soul through obedience to a superior. No reasonable person could conclude failure to name bishops results in the loss of one’s soul.

            Concerning argument 4, disputing a superior’s wisdom or propriety differs from naming bishops. Consider King Lear, Act I, Scene 1.

            KENT
            Royal Lear,
            Whom I have ever honour’d as my king,
            Loved as my father, as my master follow’d,
            As my great patron thought on in my prayers,–
            KING LEAR
            The bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft.
            KENT
            Let it fall rather, though the fork invade
            The region of my heart: be Kent unmannerly,
            When Lear is mad. What wilt thou do, old man?
            Think’st thou that duty shall have dread to speak,
            When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour’s bound,
            When majesty stoops to folly. Reverse thy doom;
            And, in thy best consideration, cheque
            This hideous rashness: answer my life my judgment,
            Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least;
            Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
            Reverbs no hollowness.
            KING LEAR
            Kent, on thy life, no more.
            KENT
            My life I never held but as a pawn
            To wage against thy enemies; nor fear to lose it,
            Thy safety being the motive.
            KING LEAR
            Out of my sight!
            KENT
            See better, Lear; and let me still remain
            The true blank of thine eye.

            ______

            Kent was not disputing royal supremacy.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            One item truly interests. Never in my life have I seen someone online speak of mitigating circumstances for a murderous Nazi War criminal sentenced to death. Here’s an interesting article on remorse as a mitigating factor.

            More specifically, it involves the kind of suffering felt by someone who acknowledges a wrong they have done to another person, who regrets doing it and wishes that they had not done it, who now desires somehow to repair the harm done and somehow to redeem themself, and who at some stage actually wills to action in some way in relation to that end (whether ultimately “successfully” or not). This complex experience, moreover, takes place over a period of time and is not a passing sensation.

            http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol10-iss2/vol10-2-21.pdf

            Touvier’s words & acts simply do not meet the criteria for remorse. He was apprehended some 20 years after hiding out, at which time he said “I regret nothing”. This notwithstanding, you said his courtroom expression (check Pistorius if you want tears) met your criteria of remorse. Only someone acting as an attorney for a foul criminal would make that assertion. Why do that? What purpose does rehabilitating a dead Nazi war criminal have?

      • Scipo_a

        This is a patently false statement. The problems in the SSPX were
        caused by +Williamson and have nothing to do with it’s founding or any
        of its goals. You will never be able to make headway with certain trads
        in this since they are servile admirers of +W and cannot see the man’s
        faults no matter how glaring (but these sorts of folks are a minority,
        loud but small)…and it is they who I outline in a later comment.. The
        “philosophy” behind the SSPX is that our neighbors should be loved as we
        love ourselves and that the TLM was never and can never be abrogated.
        That’s it. Now, the damage caused by +W is running deep, and certain
        folks here are strong evidence of that. they will go down with that
        ship so don’t you worry your head over them…they will have to answer
        for their very unchristian attitudes and beliefs. What the SSPX or any
        other trad group hopes for you and everyone else INCLUDING novus ordo
        Catholics….is a full conversion to Christ through love….pretty
        simple and pretty wonderful.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Unless, of course, the neighbor is Jewish, in which case he or she is not a neighbor, but an enemy.

          • Gerard

            Funny how you just invent hatred where there is none. It’s positive evidence of your own hatred of Catholicism. Has is coalesced into a positive hatred for Jesus Himself or was that taught to you at an early age?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Catholicism does not pose problems for me. SSPX really does. That’s because Lefebvre was a Nazi Archbishop of the worst sort.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      I should add that I think the world of the Catholic Church these days. Pope Francis is absolutely fabulous. He’s inspiring me to live more frugally.

      • Gerard

        Is he inspiring you to adopt the Catholic Faith and become a Catholic? Because if he’s not, then he’s not doing his job.
        The Pope’s job is to guide you to the salvation of your soul, not be frugal.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The words of an apologist for slavery are not especially inspiring.

          • Gerard

            Got anything of substance instead of hyperbole and ad hominem attacks? Funny how I correct you factually about your ignorance and denial of slavery existing in this day and age, and you turn around and suddenly call me an “apologist” for slavery. That’s very weak tea and very much undermines your credibility.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You said there were two sides to the slavery question. Just look above at your comments. No one says that but slavery apologists. I mean, what if someone said “there’s two sides to Ted Bundy”?

          • Gerard

            You are trying to make the utterly absurd claim that all slavery was African slaves conquered by whites in Africa and brought over to America. That’s so wrong, there was African on African slave trading of which the transatlantic slave trade was a fraction of it. And I suspect you know that, but you for some reason didn’t want to deal with anything but a strawman argument.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Actually, if you look you will see I mentioned the Arab slave trade as well. The point is racist slave trade. No matter what you say, there simply are not two sides to that question.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Just thought of something. Your stance on slavery, as odd as it seems to me, does explain SSPX hatred of SPLC. You see, SPLC won cases like this one:

            http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mansfieldvcote_judgment.pdf

            The complaint can be read here:

            http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mansfieldvcote_complaint.pdf

            Now if, as you apparently do, one wanted their slaves back, this would indeed be a hateful thing, you know, filing a lawsuit against a religious entity simply for murdering a Black person. No question but that that’s exactly how I would feel if I had what seems to be your stance on slavery.

            On the other hand, if you thought both 1) murder is horrific & 2) slavery was horrific, you’d cheer that victory as a victory for justice. In any case, SSPX folks do seem to think that way.

          • Gerard

            Another insulting, pure smear- enrobed diatribe in multiple falsehoods.
            It’s yet another example of your manifest hatred of God, the Catholic Church and essentially Truth.

            If you were honest and competent, you’d have to clarify, my stance on slavery vs. the strawman you’ve adopted in order to smear me.
            You can’t logically make a valid point since you don’t hold anything reasonable for your ethics, values or judgements to be anchored to. Truth is apparently not your goal. You’re either on the attack or pathologically defensive about your weaknesses. Those weaknesses, based on your writings seem to be a severe lack of prudence, an overblown sense of pride and lack of probity and a general disdain for other human beings.

            Souls stuck in mortal sin such as yours must be, don’t get the connections because they have the problem described as the “darkening of the intellect,” as the Roman Catechism describes it.

            Your arguments are getting worse and less disguised as you go on. Maybe you should make another magnanimous exit, taking no responsibility for your persecution of Christians and Christianity and “turn the other cheek” in response to your imagined injuries.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Strawman! Just look at all the statements against the Southern Poverty Law Center! A hate group. So why is this? The only reason, at least to me, is that you folks want to own slaves again. Can’t blame you for hating Jews these days. After all, Passover is today (not in the good old days, of course, but today) viewed as an argument against slavery. No wonder you hate the Jews so. Anyways, given the stuff the SPLC does, provide another explanation for the antipathy towards them expressed by SSPX.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If you really were against slavery, you’d have to say all those declaiming the Southern Poverty Law Center a hate group are out & out racists. Do that. Please do.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It is interesting that you say “truth is not your goal”. Were that so, why would all these, well pieces of evidence be presented for you to analyze? & you know, you get every chance to analyze them, do you not?

            Give me your interpretation of a comment that the Charles Coughlin video holder had hidden. He did not hide any of the Jew bashing comments, but did hide this:

            Mike4Dogma
            The vatican-2 heretic cult founded in 1965 at the Vatican … IS NOT and cannot be God’s Catholic Church.
            The vatican-2 cult … REJECTS the Catholic Dogma on Salvation, Water Baptism, Justification, etc.
            The v-2 cult controls all former Catholic property … you ARE being sent to Hell.
            Proof on > Immaculata-one(dot)com
            Section 12 > see 50 of over 200 heresies in the “v-2 council” docs
            Section 13 > Photographic proofs
            Section 19.1 (& 2.1) > Abjuration of heresy & steps to become Catholic

            ______

            Well, is that an anti-Catholic statement to you?

          • LATRUN

            I think you view this whole subject as ad hominem. That is just another facet of the phenomenon in Jerusalem in which individuals come to view themselves as Jesus. If so, your demeanor is entirely inappropriate. St. Peter or Paul perhaps?

          • Gerard

            No. The ad homimen attacks are simply that. The anti-Catholic bigotry is manifest as well. I’m simply defending the truth. There are plenty of phenomena in Jerusalem, perhaps you identify with the annual spitting on the Christians as they process during Holy Week?

            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No. You said there were two sides to the slavery question. Look again. That’s being an apologist for slavery.

      • LATRUN

        You should study your history more

        • Gerard

          I was about to state that the same applies to you. You don’t seem as eager to point out Jewish persecution of Christians as much as you want to point the finger at Catholics. What gives?

    • LATRUN

      Genetically and scientifically, you are incorrect. I have had my genome evaluated and it has a very high percentage relation to the average “Arab” genome. And yet my physical appearance is totally Caucasian.
      Next argument

    • Charlotte

      Is it racist for Jews to have a state? If so, is it also racist for Palestinians to have a state?

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        No.

  • Hap Harris

    This article was gratuitously hurtful and ought never to have been written.
    Traditionalists don’t hate Jews. They recognize their place in history as rejecting Jesus Christ AND…that is what it is all about and nothing else-!!!
    I’m out of this site permanently.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Yes. They also think Protestants are definitely in the wrong, methinks.

      • Gerard

        It would defy the law of non-contradiction to think that Protestants (ie. Protesters of the Catholic Church ) are correct. Conversely Protestants by definition believe Catholics are wrong.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          But SSPX hates the Jews. But one article I found in Angelus actually criticizes the Protestants. Great title too.

          THE RETURN OF ATTILA

          http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2512

          Does a good job in the traditional blow by blow of the other side that an observer such as myself finds amusing. Where, one might ask, is there stated within that article that the Protestants (not Protestantism, mind you, but the Protestants themselves) are the enemies of the Church? After all, the big thing is to name the leaders who are Protestant the emissaries of Satan. So why is are Barak Obama, George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clintion, George HW Bush, James Earl Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Ike Eisenhower, & FD Roosevelt not called Satan’s spawn? Cowardice. Pure cowardice is the only answer.

          • Gerard

            The SSPX does not hate “Jews.” Many Jews simply hate Christ and therefore Catholicism and by extension the SSPX. The article does not cite what you want because it was written on the subject of the effects of Protestantism, not Protestants as individuals but it does reference Protestants at least 7 times.

            And your reference to all of those Presidents is encapsulated in the comment by Bishop Fellay concerning “Masons” as the enemies of the Church, as well as the Modernists. Bishop Fellay makes a big mistake if he hasn’t included necessary qualifiers in his comments. Anti-Catholics love to pounce on comments like that and of course they ignore the qualifiers when they are included but there’s no reason to make their attacks easy for them. Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis deal with this all the time.

            Obviously the SSPX doesn’t hate Jews as an ethnicity or they would not have had Jewish priests among their ranks and associates.

            One of the big problems of these discussions is the loose meaning of the term “jews” in that it means multiple things and overlapping groups of people including and excluding numbers of them depending on the usage. Its primary advantage for those jews who are enemies of the Church is that it provides them anonymity among the larger swaths of people who claim jewish identity in some form and reflexively those larger groups give them cover. They have no name to distinguish them like the IRA distinguishes themselves from the total Irish population or the Mafia has to distinguish itself from the totality of Italians and many other ethnic groups have similar subsets within them that clarify the subject.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Now lookie here. First, you use “jew” instead of “Jew”. Then, you say Touvier was being protected by some sort of notion of sanctuary (would love to see that applied to Jared Loughner). Now you say because there exist priests in SSPX of Jewish heritage, that implies there is no Jew hatred.

            For one thing, you claim of knowledge of Catholic history now lacks credibility. One of the foulest Jew haters in Catholic history (no one today is to blame for this by the by) was Paul of Burgos, converted from his rabbinic work in 21 July 1391, about a month after large massacres of Jews began the prior month. So good at persecuting Jews was Paul of Burgos, they made him Archbishop & Lord Chancellor. In fact, gratitudw was so great that they made one of his sons Archbishop as well, Archbishop Alfonso of Burgos.

            A major accomplishment was penning Dialogus Pauli et Sauli Contra Judæos, sive Scrutinium Scripturarum, which Martin Luther plagiarized for his famed The Jews and Their Lies.

            The presence of Jews among SSPX clergy does not imply the absence of Jew hatred. Neither does it change the overwhelming evidence that Lefebvre was a Nazi war criminal.

          • Gerard

            LOL! Make the assertion and claim the evidence is “overwhelming” without it being even manifest. That’s the same type of hyperbole in saying that “most scholars” now say that Jesus didn’t say, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

            Now, you’re playing the game of conflating ethnic jewishness with religious Judaism and when you add cultural jewish identity and actual Zionism to the mix, you have a convenient moving target at which any criticism can be called “anti-semitism” as a cover.

            Was Paul of Burgos a “Jew Hater” or a Hater of Talmudic Judaism? I’ll answer for you. the latter. There is nothing wrong with hating error. Any Catholic that tells you, you’re fine in a non-Catholic religion or atheism is not telling you Catholic truth but rather engaging in Indifferentism and apostasy.

            Just because someone opposes a false religion does not make that person a “hater” of persons.

            Were Loughner’s circumstances in some way applicable to the principle of Sanctuary, he too would probably be granted that. You seem to think that there are some criminals that while alive are beyond redemption.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Those who think The Jews & Their Lies was a monstrous work would declaimn Paul of Burgos a fiend; those who believe otherwise think otherwise. Somehow, the notion of sanctuary applying to those accused of murder does not sit well with me. If you could provide examples from the past century of the Church giving sanctuary to persons accused of murder in democracies, you might have a point. Please list three examples.

            Murderers often are quite pleasant people. If you read up on Ted Bundy (a Tournier type, definitely, handsome, remorseless, & vicious), you will find an interview with at least one woman who never as safe as when Bundy escorted her in the dark to her car. Difficult is imagining anyone making a decision that a person accused of homicide deserves protection from government. That’s why it’s a crime virtually everywhere.

            Your assertion that Lefebvre knew nothing is redolent of proclamations by David Irving that Hitler knew naught about the Shoah. Adolf had the advantage over Marcel in this matter. You see, Adolf, unlike Marcel, put a bullet into his throat at the end of the war. So it is conceivable that were Hitler to have been victorious, he would have phoned his good friend Lefebvre, yieling:

            AH: Achtung! It has come to my attention that, you will find this unbelievable, certain Generals without my knowledge gassed millions of people. When I spoke of Jews as being evil, I was, of course, being metaphorical. Unlike Jews, I am not given to murder. What should I do?

            ML: Mon Dieu! Who would have thought a nice Vichy or Nazi capable of such?

            AH: The evidence, unfortunately, is undeniable. What should I do?

            ML: God alone can solve this. Send them to my monastery. I’ll have them dress up as priests. The moral goodness will fill their brains simply from the cloth. Have not fear, they will definitely reform.

            AH: Good idea.

            Now, Archbishop Lefebvre had no excuse. He did not put a bullet into his throat. He was alive after Touvier was caught, after Touvier said things that showed him to be remorseless. So why did he not expel all those connected with harboring a fugitive & cooperate fully with law enforcement, testifying against them? Instead a neo-Nazi SSPX priest sat beside Touvier every day during his trial.

            Here’s but one link saying the SSPX priests accompanied Touvier at his trial. I cannot recover the others that said this at this time.

            Links between the SSPX and fascism have been particularly apparent in France, where Lefebvrists have appeared regularly with Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National. In May 1989 the fugitive nazi collaborator Paul Touvier was discovered hiding at the SSPX priory in Nice, where he was sheltered with the full knowledge of the Society’s leaders. Touvier had been head of intelligence for a unit of the collaborationist Milice, working directly under Klaus Barbie, the “Butcher of Lyon”. He became the first Frenchman convicted for crimes against humanity under the Vichy regime, and was sentenced to life imprisonment after a trial where he was accompanied throughout by an SSPX priest.

            http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/fascists-join-catholic-traditionalists-at-london-conference

            I do not know anything about Searchlight Magazine (this is the first I have heard of it actually), but rest assured there are very solid sources to back up the statement that an SSPX priest sat next to Touvier at the mass murderer’s trial.

          • Gerard

            Yet more ignorance and vicious attacks. I don’t know why you specifically want democracies in which people seek sanctuary. But there was one this month in Sri Lanka.

            http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/07/3547984/church-says-sri-lankan-military.html I’m sure there were more than three people involved. I’m not going to search for more since I’m not the slave you want me to be.

            You mention pleasant murderers like Ted Bundy, but you don’t talk much about other murderers. I can name two Catholic Saints that were murderers. One is named Moses and the other is named King David of Israel. A third is Paul of Tarsus. In fact, one of those, Moses actually engaged in the only fully successful genocide in the history of the world. Prior that he fled Egypt and was harbored by a priest of all things. How about that? And you have problems with the idea of sanctuary for murder?

            Then, you launch into your denial phase and fictionalized “phone calls” for what purpose I don’t know. As if your ridicule of someone else somehow validates your unsupported opinion. That’s all an elaborate smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have as much “proof” now of LeFebvre being a “Nazi” or even having knowledge at all of Touvier or any opinion than you did at the beginning of your witch hunt, which amounts to nothing.

            You for some reason blame a priest for being near a man at his trial. What do you want a priest to do? Conform to your merciless mob-drivien mentality? From what I’ve read, the only SSPX priest mentioned was Fr. Laguerie who offered a Requiem for him. He’s no longer in the SSPX but was regularized years ago into the organizational structure of the Church as leader of the Institute of the Good Shepherd.

            Reading the “about us” section of “Searchlight” it’s obvious it’s a left-wing death worshipping rag that makes the false allegation that fascism is right wing when it has been and is historically left wing. I read some of the perverse blog posts on it. Lunacy.

            As LeFebvre’s early biographer the late Michael Davies wrote: “During the week before the Mass it became clear to the organizers that several thousand of the faithful were going to arrive whether the Archbishop wanted them to or not and so, at the last minute, they decided to hire the vast auditorium of the International Fair in Lille. This, they reckoned, would be more than sufficient to cope with any number that might arrive. This was reported in the British secular press on Saturday, 28 August, and so I made a last-minute decision to attend and, just before midnight, I left London’s Victoria Station on the boat train with just one friend.

            We met a few more traditionalists on the boat and arrived at Lille early on Sunday morning. On our way to the Inter- national Fair we were most impressed by the zeal and organization of the Lille Catholics. Stewards with arm-bands were strategically posted along the route to indicate the way and coaches had been laid on for those who felt unable to walk. There were very few police in evidence -a dozen or so traffic police at the most. When we reached the perimeter of the large grounds in which the Fair is situated a steady stream of cars had already begun to arrive. However, when I entered the huge auditorium I feared that an error of judgment had been made. A local paper which I had bought at the station gave the seating capacity as 10,000 and there was clearly room for several thousand people to stand. Under the circircumstances a congregation of 4,000 would have been a remarkable gesture of support for the Archbishop-but such a number would have appeared lost in this vast hall. I could already envisage the line the press-the Catholic press in particular-would take. The headlines would read: HALL ONLY HALF FULL FOR LEFEBVRE MASS. However, as the time for the Mass drew nearer the line of cars and procession of pedestrians grew more and more dense and, having waited outside for a friend coming by car, I found that at about 10:45 all the seats had been taken, the standing space was packed and it appeared that I would not be able to get into the auditorium. I managed to insert myself into a jam-packed mass of people which was literally inching its way along a corridor towards the auditorium. A number of young stewards did their best to persuade those inside to cram themselves up even more closely to allow a few more in. At least one report claimed that the stewards were Gestapo types wearing jackboots! I can testify that all those I saw were extremely inoffensive looking young men wearing leisure suits and that I did not notice a single jackboot anywhere in the congregation! A Soviet paper reported the presence of thousands of Italian fascists although, newspaper reporters apart, there did not appear to be a single Italian present.

            The Archbishop’s enemies have also spared no effort to publicize the fact that the journals of extreme right-wing political groups were being sold outside the auditorium; including Aspects de la France-the journal of Action franscaise. What the papers did not point out is that on at least three occasions before the Mass an announcement was made that the Archbishop did not want any literature sold outside the auditorium and that if this was done it would be in opposition to his wishes. ‘When this matter was raised during a press conference given by the Archbishop on 15 September 1976 (the full text of which was published in ltineraires of December 1976) he made the following points: he was displeased at the fact that Aspects de la France had been sold outside the auditorium at Lille; he did not read this journal; he did not know those who produced it; he had never met Charles Maurras;1 he had not even read his works; and he was thus ignorant of his political philosophy.

            It needs to be appreciated that political attitudes in France cannot be assessed on the basis of attitudes in English-speaking countries. In France political feeling tends to be more polarized, more extreme, and far more deeply felt than in England. It can only be understood in the light of the French Revolution and subsequent history -particularly the inter-war period and the German occupation. At the risk of a serious over-simplification, it is reasonable to state that up to the Second World War Catholicism in France tended to be identified with right-wing politics and anti-Catholicism with the left. Since the war, and especially since Vatican II, the official French Church has veered sharply to the left and has adopted all the postures identified with the Liberal consensus which is accepted throughout the West, e. g. on the virtues of the Viet Cong and the evils of capitalism. Thus, a large proportion of right-wing Catholics was predisposed to support any religious movement opposed to the policies of the French hierarchy. The political views of some of the French Catholics who support the Archbishop would certainly be odious to many English-speaking traditionalists – although such views are more understandable (if not acceptable) within the French context. However, if they wish to support the Archbishop (and not necessarily for the right reasons) there is nothing he can do about it. His own alleged right-wing political philosophy is nothing more than straight-forward Catholic social teaching as expounded by the Popes for a century or more. Those familiar with this teaching need only read his book A Bishop Speaks to see at once that his so-called “political” utterances are no more than paraphrases of teaching contained in papal encyclicals. The French hierarchy has replaced this social teaching with diluted Marxism to such an extent that anyone adopting the Catholic position is now automatically accused of fascism. Whenever the Archbishop is accused of intermingling the traditional faith and right-wing politics a demand should be made that chapter and verse be provided to substantiate the allegation. The almost invariable Liberal response will be to ignore such a demand but, if a reply is given, it will be found that what is being objected to is the consistent teaching of the Popes.”

            What should be quite obvious is that Mgr. Lefebvre cannot prevent anyone who wishes to support him from doing so.

            It is quite certain that there is no formal link whatsoever between Mgr. Lefebvre and any political party in any country. He has a right to his own political views, so have his priests, so have those who support him. But support for the Archbishop does not involve adherence to any political standpoint, only to the traditional faith, the traditional liturgy, and the social teaching of the Popes.

            http://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_13.htm

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            1) Your link to Sri Lanka does not link.

            2) Jews seeking refuge from murder differs from hiding a murderer from police.

            3) Constant accompaniment is companionship; fellowship with remorseless murderers is not praiseworthy.

            4) Mr. Davies words, however valid, do not address the issue at hand; he does not address harboring a fugitive.

            5) The bible offers no defense to remorseless murder.

            Davies opinions on other matters are moot; but your opinion on one small point interests greatly. Read this paragraph please:

            Cardinal Heenan’s reference to “liturgical experts” is crucial if we are to understand the reason for the orgy of destruction in our sanctuaries which followed the Council. Those who exercised the greatest influence during Vatican II were not the Council Fathers, the three thousand bishops and heads of religious orders who had come to Rome from all over the world, but the expert advisers they brought with them, referred to in Latin as the periti. Bishop Lucey of Cork and Ross stated explicitly that the periti were the people with power. [Catholic Standard (Dublin), October 17, 1973.] Cardinal Heenan warned that when the Council was over the periti were planning to use the Council documents in a manner which the Council Fathers had not envisaged. The documents were to be interpreted and implemented by commissions to be established after the Council. Cardinal Heenan warned against the danger of the periti taking control of these commissions, thus gaining the power to interpret the Council to the world. “God forbid that this should happen!” he cried—–but happen it did. [Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (1967; rpt. Rockford, Illinois: TAN, 1985), p. 210.]

            http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/sanctuary.htm

            Mr. Davies later cites then Cardinal Ratzinger’s approval of his suggestions. How is it, if an “orgy of destruction” actually existed, that Pope Benedict never made this a major issue. Do you think a conspiracy of orgy enthusiasts perverted him? You know, sort of like the conspiracy of masons some posit, the ones who want bricks laid atop one another for free.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Moses was a murderer? That bemused me until this site came to light:

            http://www.thebricktestament.com/exodus/moses_commits_murder/ex02_12a.html

            Definitely on the side of “real” Catholics, n’est-ce pas?

            You know, the world was definitely a different moral universe back then, just as was so with Pope Alexander VI. Hence, where killing was kind of routine, especially killing slaves (read the auto-biography of Frederick Douglass to see how that tradition was kept in the US) the killing of someone who beats slaves for a living is a horrific crime to you. How else to explain your righteous anger where the bible is silent? You want your slaves back, & you want to repeat that passage in the New Testament about slaves obeying their masters (that way you can show Christian love to them). To help you on your way in this matter, there’s a great passage in the Old Testament about how one acquires concubines. I’ll let you find it yourself.

            Can’t blame you for hating Jews today with the way Passover is interpreted. Also, can’t blame you for getting all upset about the Southern Poverty Law Center’s, what with its lawsuits against Whites who kill Black people.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You make a very interesting statement:

            “And your reference to all of those Presidents is encapsulated in the comment by Bishop Fellay concerning “Masons” as the enemies of the Church, as well as the Modernists.”

            _____

            Now what are the qualifiers to which you refer? Please explain that, since otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are saying that the US government, except under JFK, was acting at the behest of Satan.. Speak. Speak. Speak.

          • Gerard

            I don’t know if JFK was an informal mason or not. He had enough troubles it seems and the Kennedys were not paragons of practiciing Catholics.

            You seem to think the SSPX made the rules up regarding Catholicism and Freemasonry. They didn’t. The Pope that wrote Rerum Novarum Leo XIII was one of the strongest opponents to freemasonry.

            John Salza was a Catholic trapped in Freemasonry for a time and has since reverted and worked at educating people about the evils of freemasonry.

            http://scripturecatholic.com/freemasonfaq.html

            Contemporary rulings on freemasonry from the Vatican website:

            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19850223_declaration-masonic_articolo_en.html

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Please be so kind as to clarify matters. Do you believe the following sentence?

            The United States was led by Satanic men during the Presidencies of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

          • Gerard

            Please clarify the statement. Are the “Satanic men” you are referring to the individual Presidents? Or are you referring to a contemporary group or groups of men who lead the U.S. during those periods? And are you using the term “Satanic” to mean clownish devil worshippers, the more restrained Luciferians or the more generic form of the word meaning “adversary” or “accuser.” If you are are referring to the Presidents themselves I would refer to you Michael Voris’ recent episode of “The Vortex” in which he describes Obama as an “agent of Hell.” Voris is not an SSPX’er nor even a rock ribbed “radical traditionalist.”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6ZLDvPPRgsU

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Do you think Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter were “agents of Hell”?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Immensely enjoyable is discussing matters with you, but some things are simply too much to bear. I really, really tried to read the links you put up on freemasonry. Assuredly they have all the logic & wisdom on earth behind them, but that stuff on freemasonry just puts me to sleep. I have no idea what freemasons are, but do think it is perhaps wrong to fail to charge those who build homes when one puts cement on bricks.

            Kind of like law not involving crimes against the person. One day a lawyer friend suggested what she deemed the most brilliant decision penned in the twenty-first century.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1126.pdf

            Each of over 20 attempts to read this thing yielded sleep by page 3. The other problem is that your post is less fun as it does not accuse me of dishonesty or evil.

          • Gerard

            It’s hard to take your post seriously, considering the Vatican’s pages are no more than one page each and one of which is probably shorter than your shortest post on this thread, I doubt you even looked at them. And, If you claim you have no idea what freemasonry is, it’s clear you didn’t read the first question and the summary answer on the FAQ page I linked from John Salza (a lawyer by the way) You would also have a woeful understanding of American History.

            It’s more likely that you “were bored” because realized there is no benefit to yourself or your agenda in condemning the SSPX’s mere repetition of the Church’s doctrinal positions on Modernism and Freemasonry.

            Now perhaps you love the principles of Freemasonry which would automatically put you in an adversarial position with the Catholic Church. That would explain your hostility.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Brevity is not the problem. Clarity to non-theologically trained is the difficulty. That’s why the SCOTUS decision is inserted; you may have trouble sleeping one night & that decision is far better than any sleeping medicine you might take.

            Now just as I can talk with you about the law as respects serious crimes against the person, so I can speak with you about theological issues related to schism & heresy. The latter theological issues are readily accessible & are well discussed because they are vital to learn if you want to know about the history of the Catholic Church, which is the same as wanting to know about the history of Europe until the treaties of Westphalia. Murder law is accessible (you can actually read SCOTUS decisions with a bit of practice & advice) because 1) the government wants everyone to know about murder law so they do neither commit nor abet murder, 2) the police, who are no brighter nor stupider than average citizens need what is known as “bright lines” in which to do their work, 3) judges in homicide trials are under constant & foul attack by both sides–they must have rocks to which they can cling in making their decisions.

            By contrast, there is simply no way I can even talk reasonably about law in general with anyone. That takes three years of law school & the more you try to look at the niceties of contract law (which differ from state to state of course), the more your head spins. Likewise, I cannot talk about how the rules that govern my morals (virtually the same for Jews & Catholics because we lived together for so many centuries) stem from either the Magisterium or the Talmud. I can only say what priests & rabbis tell me is the right thing to do in general; both types of religious assistants know when you are coming to them with such questions that you are not interested in a lecture upon how the right decision came to be the right decision.

            Now even though I can no more understand the Vatican’s statements on Freemasonry, it’s a pretty sure bet that they were responding to requests of Catholics to be able to be like Fred Flinstone, to wear the funny hats, participate in the odd parades, & chat with the grand poobah. The Vatican says NO to that. But that’s all it says, almost certainly. I cannot imagine the Vatican saying anything like 1) “Freemasons are involved in all sorts of nefarious plots” 2) “Freemasons control the federal reserve” or 3) “these are the enemies of the Church. Go out when you get a chance & burn down their buildings & kill their membership.” If this assumption is incorrect, prove me wrong & I’ll never speak to a priest again in my life.

            As for that fellow you claim says Obama is a tool of the devil, what can be said? All of us are wrong in things in our life. Unimaginable is my saying anything like that about a person elected in a Democracy, even Silvio Berlusconi, who claimed to be the Jesus Christ of politics. He may well be as honest as a three dollar bill, but Satan’s tool he ain’t.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Equivocation fools only the equivocator, my good fellow. Tell you what. If Touvier was such a repentant mass murderer, why is this statement true:

            The furor prompted legal action to have Touvier indicted for “crimes against humanity,” which are not subject to statutes of limitation. Soon after being indicted in 1973, Touvier disappeared again.

            He evaded the law until he was captured on May 24, 1989, at a Catholic monastery in Nice that was operated by followers of Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, a right-wing cleric who had been excommunicated by the Vatican the year before. Touvier had spent several months in the monastery and had occasionally been seen walking near it dressed as a priest.

            “I regret nothing,” he said as he was taken into custody.

            http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/touvier-obit.html

            The French words, “Je ne regrette rien,” are the title of

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtGfyruroU

            Ms. Piaf performed for German Troops throughout WWII & was considered a traitor; her claim to have served the French Resistance afterwards lacks evidence. In any case, this unrepentant murderer was assisted at trial every day by the presence of an SSPX priest sitting beside him. Such is the stuff of heroism in SSPX liturgy, murder being their equivalent of courage.

          • Gerard

            You’ve certainly and most likely deliberately skipped over Touvier’s quote of repentance listed in his Wikipedia article.

            From reading the guy’s story it seems he was handed a double jeopardy scenario after he was initially exonerated. It was the “furor” not the Fuhrer that got him indicted. Seems it was political trophy hunting if you ask me.

            God is his ultimate judge, not you, not me. He may be in Heaven and you or I may not make it or he may be in Hell. But in any case, any efforts by any priest SSPX or otherwise to save the man’s soul will result in graces for that priest.

            You seem obsessed with WWII and only a small part of it. So naturally, you think everyone else has to be.

            The SSPX or any good Catholic isn’t interested in your flawed definition of “heroism” or your relentless guilt by association elitism. They are concerned with the final fate of souls. Everything that concerns that and nothing else.

            It’s amazing that you go on about Edith Piaf or some French Malice officer and you don’t mention anything about Jewish Ghetto Police or hustlers like the World Jewish Congress or the Simon Wiesenthol Center and their exploitation and profiting from the presentation of the victimization of jews. Heck what is the SSPX even if it was what you falsely claim compared to the Gulags of the Soviets? Or the persecution of Catholics in China and India nowadays?. And you’re quiet about all of that. Gotta try and squeeze some manufactured guilt out of the Catholics it seems. Since the Chinese Communists and the real criminals of the world are not the real enemy. Jesus Christ is the real enemy.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA5oWXAJa5E

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvLqR0FChEk

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Have just looked into the matter of his “repentance.” Although you reference Wikipedia, you did not bother to link to it. The source: The LA Times.

            Now people say what their lawyers tell them to say before a jury to provision them the best shot at a not guilty verdict. When taking the remorse trip, what one does is to throw oneself at the mercy of the court. “I was dead wrong about that. I never should have blown Ms. Smith’s brains out with my Glock. May God have mercy on my soul. Go on and find me guilty.”

            The result is beneficial. First, it shows real sorrow about one’s actions. Second, it basically says “Don’t worry. I ain’t a gonna appeal this thing. Do what you want. Get the firing squad ready.”

            So what happened? Did he actually say “I did wrong.”

            NO.

            Here’s what he said, from the article:

            Touvier admitted ordering the execution of seven Jewish prisoners at
            Rillieux-la-Pape outside Lyons on June 29, 1944, but said he had
            sacrificed them to save the lives of 23 others. He said the Nazis had
            demanded 30 victims to avenge the assassination of Vichy Information
            Minister Philippe Henriot.

            In a brief statement issued before
            jurors began deliberations, Touvier said: “I have never forgotten the
            victims of Rillieux. I think about them every day, every night.”

            wrote about this. Consider these quotes:

            Touvier admitted ordering the execution of seven Jewish prisoners at Rillieux-la-Pape outside Lyons on June 29, 1944, but said he had sacrificed them to save the lives of 23 others. He said the Nazis had demanded 30 victims to avenge the assassination of Vichy Information
            Minister Philippe Henriot.

            In a brief statement issued before jurors began deliberations, Touvier said: “I have never forgotten the
            victims of Rillieux. I think about them every day, every night.”

            http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-20/news/mn-48236_1_war-crimes

            Now the Talmudic rabbis, from their study of the bible, concluded that anything but three things are good acts if they result in saving a life: 1) Murder, 2) adultery, 3) public idolatry. Because Touvier committed murder, his acts are unjustified.

            Of course, you, hating the Talmud, disagree.

            The real proof, however, of lack of remorse lies in his attorney’s attempt to appeal matters. Can you show us the SSPX document that says “this guy was a horrible murderer”?

          • Gerard

            Just more of the same….false assertion….ad hominem…..double and triple standards…logical fallacies.

            To paraphrase Chesterton, everything you condemn you demand evidence of a black swan to prove you wrong and then when evidence is presented, you dismiss the swans on the account of being black.

            You make wild accusations without a shred of proof and flat out lie about me, Catholicism, Jesus Christ, the SSPX. Marcel LeFebvre and you claim as evidence of guilt the lack of a declaration of innocence.

            And please stop pretending you are a lawyer. If you are, don’t admit it for the sake of your professional colleagues.
            That naive sell on what lawyers give as advice is a weak justification for your absurd conclusions.

            And your diatribe about the Talmud is an argument from the authority of the Talmud. Why impose your religious beliefs (when convenient and to your personal advantage )on me and in the same breath try to enforce them through the politically malleable legal system while denying the same to the SSPX or Catholics in general?

            I brought up “Sophies’ Choice” earlier as an example of exactly what you condemn in Touvier. One can validly argue the rightness or wrongness of both actions, if one doesn’t have a double standard based on selfish advantage and emotional appeals. We can argue whether Touvier or “Sophie” utilized the principle of double effect or not according to Aquinas. And I’m not appealing to Aquinas on his authority but rather a chain of reason can be linked with his arguments from self-evident principles.

            Face it, you have to admit your tactics don’t change and they are the tactics of an anti-Catholic, Jesus-hating bigot.

            You display hatred for any single standards to be applied in the evaluation of objective reality. You and those you approve of are elites. You condemn the existence of any human equality and dignity, you avoid moral absolutes.

            Blather on about Touvier and the SSPX and whether the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed to your constantly shifting levels of satisfaction. You’ll be silent as a thief in the night before you make a cause of condemning Caiaphas for saying, “…That it was expedient that one man should die for the people.”

            Now, you’ll either deny the authenticity of the quote or simply enlist a double standard for Caiaphas or “Sophie” and you won’t describe that as “murder” or “accessory to murder” but you’ll go after the Christians for that with relish.

            That’s your track record on this thread. I don’t have to make anything up. You unfortunately have difficulty dealing honestly with my irrefutable points and instead have to calumniate and create strawman arguments and ad hominems to keep yourself on the offensive.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I am not a lawyer. Cats do not try to bury me when i go to the beach.

            di·a·tribe [dahy-uh-trahyb] Show IPA noun a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism: repeated diatribes against the senator.

            Nothing penned by me should be interpreted as being against the Talmud.

            Likely you meant to say my referencing the Talmud was an imposition of my belief system on others. That’s also untrue. I was merely stating my belief, which is that the only things you can’t do to save a life are 1) public idolatry, 2) adultery, & 3) murder.

            You do not accept those beliefs, which is fine by me. The main thing is what to make of your saying you don’t like that particular belief. Is it that you think killing all the Jews is needed to save Christian Society? Do answer.

            As for the rest, it is impossible for me to understand what you are saying. You provide no evidence to counter the abundant material put forward to prove 1) SSPX is heretical & 2) Lefebvre was a Nazi Archbishop. That’s what the reader should conclude.

            Let’s proceed with another Southern Poverty Law Center case, you know, the entity everyone on SSPX’s side is calling a hate group.

            Here is another court judgment:

            http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mansfieldvpierce_judgmentstayexec.pdf

            Here is the complaint:

            http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/mansfieldvpierce_complaint.pdf

            Now your “anti-Hate” side might argue that the murder of that Black man was justified as a means of helping return your right to own Black flesh, just like the good old days. Those of us on the other side (yes, me) would argue that murder is always foul & that slavery is awful.

            But you guys & gals want your slaves back.

          • Gerard

            Well. It’s good to know your beliefs. Since you previously made the claim that the “philosophy” of the SSPX leads to the gassing of jews, that means according to your own stated beliefs guided by the “philosophy” of the Talmud, that you can lie, scapegoat, misrepresent, shift your standards, basicallyl engage in any scullduggery short of 3 exceptions you can think of to besmirch the SSPX because you think you are “saving a life.”

            So, there is no reason to believe you are anything but agenda driven because of your false assumptions.

            And, if you are not doing everything short of idolatry, adultery or murder to save the lives of jews, then that means you lied about the SSPX and their “philosophy” in the first place.

            So, again there is no reason to believe you.

            And I’m not engaging in hyperbole, no one has to follow the links relevant or irrelevant. The evidence is manifest right here with your constant, immoral efforts to portray anyone disagreeing with you about the SSPX as racist wannabe slavemasters.

            Your campaign of anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred is very revealing to a lot of Catholics who don’t understand that the Christian ethic towards honesty is not shared among all persons of differing religions, cultures or social ethnic groupings.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            1. “[A]ccording to your own stated beliefs guided by the ‘philosophy’ of the Talmud, that you can lie, scapegoat, misrepresent, shift your standards, basicallyl [sic] engage in any scullduggery short of 3 exceptions you can think of to besmirch the SSPX because you think you are ‘saving a life’. So, there is no reason to believe you are anything but agenda driven because of your false assumptions. ”

            Catholics having trouble with unworthy claims to authority by followers of a Nazi Archbishop can now review the evidence for themselves about the SSPX, the demonstration of whose heretical nature you have not refuted.

            2. “And, if you are not doing everything short of idolatry, adultery or murder to save the lives of jews, then that means you lied about the SSPX and their ‘philosophy’ in the first place. So, again there is no reason to believe you.”

            Qs = “doing everything short of idolatry, adultery, or murder to save the lives of jews [sic]”

            Rs = “you lied about the SSPX and their ‘philosophy’.”

            There is no reason to believe: IF NOT Qs, THEN RS.

            Your conclusion is invalid.

            3. “The evidence is manifest right here with your constant, immoral efforts to portray anyone disagreeing with you about the SSPX as racist wannabe slavemasters.”

            To proclaim there are two sides to the racist slave trade, as you have done, renders one an apologist for racist slavery. The opportunity was provided to you to mitigate matters by damning as racists those who say the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group.

            That which is a hate group is not, in its principal endeavor, a force for good. The principal endeavor of the Southern Poverty Law Center is obtaining justice by legal means for those who have suffered injustice, in its most important cases, due to the color of their skin. As you have had the opportunity to review these cases, you can still take the position of moral leadership & say that those saying SPLC is a hate group are racists.

            There is indeed a second explanation for declaiming SPLC a hate group apart from the desire to own slaves, come to think of it. If one wanted to kill all African Americans after having killed all Jews, it would follow that SPLC would also be considered a hate group.

            4. No one’s life is being saved by these posts in my or anyone else’s mind; your general argument is moot. All people have to do is look up the references to see the Vichy Regime was a Nazi regime, one considered illegal by every French government since the was.

            Your position on honesty is rather odd. Assume a baby were in a fire in danger of losing it’s life; would you not do anything short of Murder, Public Idolatry, & Adultery to save its life? Was concealing slaves from their slave masters seeking them before the civil war in the underground railroad (this involved verbal dishonesty to say the least) a sin?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Caiaphus was a bad guy. I’m sorry, but there’s nothing I could do to stop him.

          • Gerard

            How “bad” was Caiaphas? Was he “Nazi” bad? Or not that bad? Or was he worse than “nazi” bad? But maybe we should apply your standards (not the ones you apply to yourself but to the SSPX) maybe Caiaphas was someone who birthed a philosophy just as you talk about an amorphous SSPX philosophy that leads to murder. And maybe that philosophy has resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions of people or even billions if you count abortion. So maybe anyone who indulges in the philosophy of Caiaphas and his followers are complicit with the worst criminals in history. That would be the logical conclusion when applying your standards against the SSPX to Caiaphas and those who came after him. I guess maybe that’s why you need a different set of standards depending on who you are attacking.

            Oh, and to apply your own standards, you can say he was a “bad guy” all you want but we can reject that out of hand.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Even going back five hundred years, it’s impossible to blame anyone today for what happened then. Specific statements were made with respect to Germans & Japanese born after 1935 (extended to 1934 at your request). Since you are really getting unreal, let’s get unreal. To repeat:

            Were there a time machine I’d transport Him here before His arrest, preventing crucifixion. You were asked something you can answer. Simply out of courtesy it would be nice to provide for His immediate needs. After getting Him food & drink, He would almost certainly enjoy some music.

            What music do you think Jesus would enjoy most?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You know, one problem with you appears to be a lack of enjoyment. The only thing that appears to please you is calling other people dishonest, people you have never even met. That must get tiresome when you know, deep down inside, that the person you are cursing is laughing whenever you do that. I really wish you good health, prudence, & wisdom.

            Tell you my opinion. Based on my reading, Jesus would seem to like a particular piece quite well, not the whole opera, but this particularly fabulous song, beginning at 3:03 of this video:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv5cKG5ADuM

            Although my palette has many favorites, this particular one would, in my opinion, appeal to Jesus most. Your thoughts?

          • Gerard

            I do enjoy greatly telling dishonest people they are dishonest. It’s like sunlight on an infection. Whether you laugh or cry is not my business and has no effect on me personally. My joy doesn’t come from myself. It comes from Jesus Christ, the source of all true joy.

            Regarding your musical tastes, I could quip that Jesus listens to His own personal nine choirs of Angels who unendingly sing, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, Heaven and Earth are Full of thy Glory, Hosanna in the Highest, Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord, Hosanna in the Highest.”

            But in reality, Jesus does not “enjoy” the way we enjoy things. He is God, the source of all joy and He possesses joy in His own perfections in an infinite way. Jesus does not enter into our joy, we can only enter into His.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Good to see you back, for this is great fun.

            Jesus was human, a person who enjoyed things just as we do. Your Jesus appears to be outrageously egotistical. The last thing most would want after having basically been through a lot of BS is praise of themselves, unless they were truly full of themselves. Instead, assuming I had just rescued Jesus from a nasty death, it would seem he would say “Hey, Rox, thanks so much. That’s good food you served too. You got any music for me to hear?”

            That’s what would induce me to put that choice on. So what would your choice of entertainment be? Unless you say otherwise, this would seem to be your choice:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb5MjWZ7kxk

            That kind of thing is just not to my taste, but it seems yours.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            God created this:

            http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2009025bc/

            Were you able to craft galaxies with stars numberless, with relationships unimagined as of yet by human beings, would you not even care what humans incapable of reaching the edge of their solar system thought or said or did to you? Do you care what roaches think of you? The worst pain & insult a single gnat not carrying infectious disease could inflict upon me is infinitely less than the worst damage or insult I could do to God.

            The point being that if one accepts the New Testament, Jesus had to have been human, with feelings assessable as humans feel them.

            To more earthly matters, do you believe being an accessory to murder is a good thing or a bad thing?

          • Gerard

            You are soooo wrong. If that’s what you think, you ultimately do not believe in Offenses or Justice. Were I able to craft galaxies and Quasars and Pulsars as well as Quarks and the laws and the forces of the Universe, If I didn’t care what humans did, I would still be far, far less than God.

            Your analogy of the gnat is also revelatory of your overall dehumanized conception. You don’t take into account the idea that the gnat may be loved by the person beyond the comprehension of the gnat. But God doesn’t view you or me the way we view gnats. He knows the gnats and us better than we know either and He knows the differences. One he created in His own image.

            Jesus was fully human and fully Divine through the Hypostatic Union. Jesus was also a perfect man, who offered the perfect and infinite sacrifice of Himself to satisfy the Justice of God due to the sins of Man. This is why Christ was crucified and God had the Angel stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. The sacrifice would not have been enough to reconcile Man to God, even though Isaac was a willing sacrifice and even carried the wood to the place of sacrifice. As Abraham said without knowing fully “God will supply the Lamb.”

            To the spiritual matter of murder and being an accessory, I believe that to be a bad thing (ie. sin) based on the Justice of God. Do you believe it to be a bad thing? On what do you base your belief? If God can’t be offended by you, what does it matter what you do to another who also can’t offend God? Have you ever supported an advocate for abortion? Would that make you an accessory to murder if you did?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Caring about bipeds on a small planet bounding a dying star in an unremarkable galaxy is neither creditworthy or blameworthy for a Supreme Being.

            Humans think about a particular gnat less than the gnat thinks the human thinks about it; more accurate, still inadequate, would be comparing a human & a diatom.

            Were Jesus fully human, he enjoyed some music more than other music. What music, in your opinion, would this human have liked best?

            Abraham evinced faith by a willingness to sacrifice his only begotten son (apart from Ishmael). Your interpretation may well be orthodox in Catholicism, but is not Jewish.

            Being an accessory after the fact, to murder is a horrific crime & is so not merely because Judaism’s most basic precepts lead to that conclusion. Providing a hide out, intimidating witnesses, etc., delays arrest, provisioning opportunity for more murder. SSPX’s assisting Touvier may have yielded untimely deaths.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Reject the notion that Caiaphus was a bad guy all you wish, it is my judgment that he was. John Wayne Gacy was also a bad guy, not quite as bad as Caiaphus, but definitely up there. Was Mr. Gacy one of your childhood heroes?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Your Chesterton quote fascinates.The reader should examine all the stuff provided by me, the evidence, the links. Then the reader should see how you provided a link to an article from Haaretz not relevant to SSPX & a suggestion to look at Wikipedia.

            Much appreciated was your suggestion because it led me to an article by the LA Times that proved Touvier remorseless.

          • Gerard

            Yes. I understand. Because the most important thing in the world is for you to sit in judgement over the interior disposition of another human being. The LA Times articles are obviously more intimate and truthful than the confessional.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            “Judge not that ye be not judged” would seem wise with respect to relationships with one’s living associates, not persons from the past, major political figures, or persons convicted at trial, viz:

            Jurors found Joseph Naso guilty Tuesday of killing four women with double initials in their names in the Bay Area and Yuba County between 1977 and 1994.

            Naso, 79, now faces the death penalty.

            He pleaded not guilty to four counts of murder and represented himself during the two-month trial with some assistance from the Marin County Public Defender’s office.

            Naso was arrested in Reno in 2010 after probation officers searched his home in connection with an unrelated gun conviction.

            Investigators found numerous photographs of nude women who appeared unconscious and in unnatural positions, laminated obits of some of the victims, a “list
            of 10″ unnamed women that appeared to be a list of murder victims and other evidence.

            http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/jurors-find-naso-guilty-double-initial-serial-kill/nZTg2/

            It is my judgment that this man is a monster who committed heinous crimes. I am always ambivalent about capital punishment, but my judgment is that he is a monster nonetheless.

            Is that sinful?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Double jeapardy occurs when one is tried, found not guilty, & then tried again under the system of US law. A person may, however, be investigated by the police & prosecutors, dropped from consideration, reconsidered, dropped, reconsidered, over & over again without double jeopardy. A person may also be found not guilty of one set of violations of law relative to the same event & then found guilty of another set of violations of law, as took place with respect to the Rodney King beatings in LA. Mr. Pompidou did not find Mr. Touvier innocent. Mr. Touvier was sentenced to death twice.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Judges on this here planet is wears black robes. Touvier was found guilty multiple times. He expressed regret, not remorse, as this Touvier like person says:

            Two former Marines who took part in the killing of a
            Marine sergeant and his bride during a home-invasion robbery at the couple’s
            French Valley home were sentenced today, one to death and the other to a no-
            parole life prison term.

            The triggerman, Emrys Justin John, 23, and 25-year-old Kevin Darnell Cox were convicted with another man for Oct. 15, 2008, slayings of 24-year-old Janek Pietrzak and his 26-year-old wife, Quiana Faye Jenkins-Pietrzak. John was sentenced to death and Cox to two consecutive life terms.

            Last month, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Christian Thierbach imposed capital punishment on 25-year-old Tyrone Lloyd Miller.

            Cox continued to profess his innocence during the sentencing hearing today.

            “Even after I got arrested … I didn’t think I’d be here today. I still don’t think I should be. Remorse and regret are different things,” he said.

            Cox apologized “for what happened”, but said he doesn’t feel he “did anything to be here for it.”

            http://murrieta.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/former-marine-sentenced-to-life-for-murder-of-french-valley-couple

            Touvier felt he did not deserve to be in the dock, else he would not have hid out all those decades, would he? Unlike Mr. Cox, Mr. Touvier was not executed. He lived a free man thanks to SSPX.

  • Christus Vincit

    So what exactly is wrong with being anti-semitic? They spit in the face of God and killed his son. They have shown that they are a cursed race, by these actions.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Here’s where your thoughts lead:

      http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/kovno/mass/photo2.htm

      May it be that you will become less murderous with time.

    • WSquared

      That was just ugly. Please go to Confession.

      Remember that from the Cross, Christ said, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do!” Did you not notice that throughout Christ’s passion, the spirit of the world– from Pilate, who washed his hands of the matter, to the crowd, to the Sanhedrin, to the disciples who ran away, to Peter who denied the Lord three times– brought Christ to Calvary? If I recall correctly, it was St. Paul who said that all are guilty, and all are in need of redemption. So yeah, that does mean everybody, no exceptions.

    • jeff

      Mate are you fair dinkum or a troll?

      It’s dickheads like you who will get the TLM banned properly.

  • Felix_Culpa

    I see a whole lot more Jew-hatred on the radical left than on the radical right. “Zombietime” documents protests that take place in San Francisco–the most “progressive” of all progressive places to be. And the things the rad-left have to say about Jews and Israel are way worse than anything I’ve ever heard from any Catholic Trad. Her blog is here: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

    • Charlotte

      Possibly, but I’m not sure how you’d reliably determine which side has more anti-semitism. The interesting thing to me is how otherwise opposing extremes both tend to be fertile grounds for this ideology. There seems to be something about it that draws extremists of all stripes.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      The worst Jew haters today, those lovable radical Islamists, want Christians dead. Mass murder now threatens Egypt’s Copts more than anyone else. I have written my Senator to consider mass asylum & hope others will act similarly. The thought of ten million dead Copts sends shivers down my spine.

  • Fr. John+

    There is no such thing as ‘anti-s*mitism,’ especially when applied to those (as St. John said) who ‘say they are Judeans, and are not.’ [Rev. 2:8,9] I would rather stand on the side of St. John Chrystostom, and the Fathers ANY DAY, than such puerile, vacillating and pusillanimous ‘thinkers’ such as your mind exhibits. You have changed allegiances so often, I can only imagine what you might want to be ‘ordained’ next- probably a Buddhist. Repent, and stop spreading this cacamamie heresy, this Deicide-friendly s*tanism! Anathema sit.

  • RoxanneRoxanadana

    Father, this is actually quite fun. It should be recognized that 1) not only have priests been the big moral advisers professionally (hardly any rabbis out west for such things, because we are quite sparsely distributed) 2) many, many family members by marriage are Catholic. What needs to be understood is that SSPX, not traditionalists in general, wants to conquer the Church. To do this, they have used a quite useful political expedient, Jew hatred! To see that, all one needs to do is ask why, if they are so against ALL religions that are not Catholic, they have not said that, since JFK, the White House has been in the hands of Satan. I suspect that all this stuff about child abuse (which occurs in all religions) comes in large part from SSPX, but I cannot prove it.

    • Gerard

      Airing suspicions and having no proof is the playbook of demonization. Just letting you know once again what you are objectively doing.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        You know. I have provided a lot of links. You have not really provided more than, perhaps, one. Why is this? As for you stance on conversion, you do know that this is not exactly a discourse on Catholic faith in general. If you want to discuss such things, you can visit my facebook page.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        You have not visited my Facebook page. Just for the record.

        • Gerard

          Not interested in Facebook.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It’s all right by me. The more you speak here the more others can really see what SSPX is all about. After all, were it not for SSPX, I would never have heard of Pope Pius XII. You see, the ones who really count in wars have things like planes, ships, submarines, soldiers & the like. WWII was an incredibly complex affair, if you want to learn about it, you need to really spend most of your time with names like George Patton, Hideki Tōjō, Hiens Guderian, Bernard Montgomery, etc., etc., etc. Everything else followed the aggressive conquest of entire continents. My first contact with Pope Pius XII came when I saw a brutal online assault of a Catholic by an SSPX’er. That seemed incredibly odd to me, what with this love thy neighbor stuff. I did not really like spending time on that simply because, well, the Pope did not play any role whatsoever in winning D Day, for example. In any case, the more I learned about SSPX, the more I understood why the Vatican could do very little about Charles Coughlin, for avoiding schism is vital. That notwithstanding, you are enjoyable to speak with. Here;s my favorite AMERICAN propaganda movie of all time, one that told a big, fat lie by making it seem like Midway was a walk in the park.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8tQ_6dqS8

          • Gerard

            I”m writing, not speaking. And the more I write, the more you seem to try and distort the truth of what I’m stating. People see those dishonest tactics very clearly especially when I point it out and you have no response.

            Stalin when he asked Churchill snidely how many divisions the Pope had, Churchill relayed the message to Pius XII and the Pope said, “Tell my son Josef that he will meet my divisions in Heaven.”

            You never heard of Pius XII before 2 weeks ago? When this thread began, you didn’t even know the name of the SSPX. That seems incredible.

            Whether you really encountered an assault on a Catholic that was brutal by an “SSPXer” is dubious as well. It’s one of the spiritual works of mercy to rebuke the sinner and another to instruct the ignorant. The highest form of charity (love of neighbor) is to wish the highest good for them, the highest good is for the soul to get to Heaven. So what may look brutal to less charitable eyes is actually charitable and what may look charitable and tolerant or even “nice” is ultimately cruel.

            If you want to understand WWII or history in general, you need to understand it through the relationship of God and man in history. The last 300 years and the secularization of the world is a war against God. You want to understand WWII, you have to understand the freezing out of the Vatican diplomatic corps at Versailles.

            The “Vatican” was every effective in silencing Fr. Coughlin in exchange for diplomatic relations with the Roosevelt admin. The anti-semite card was only thrown against Coughlin after he turned on Roosevelt as part of a smear campaign. A few carefully edited news clips has fed the myth that Coughlin was anti-semitic when in reality Coughlin was very liberal and even faulty in his Catholicism in favor of what Leo XIII condemned as “Americanism.” Coughlin’s big mistake was his ecumenical outreach towards anti-Catholics in an effort to improve social conditions.

            The “Vatican” has had great difficulty in dealing with the SSPX because the SSPX is correct in the core of their arguments. They are doctrinally sound and can rightly condemn policies initiated by the hierarchy of the Church and passed off as “teachings” when they are no such thing.
            If a Pope were to condemn a doctrinal teaching of the SSPX as they have been to this point (not to say they may not fall into error at some point) then the Pope would be manifestly condemning the Magisterium of the Church and would be in error and possibly automatically lose his office.

            The Catholic Church cannot change doctrinally. No Pope can alter the teachings on the male only priesthood. Homosexual behavior will always be sinful and condemned. Divorce from a sacramentally valid marriage and remarriage will always be wrong. And there will always be only one true Church outside of which no one is saved. None of that is popular but it is all true. The SSPX holds that along with a good number of traditional Catholics. Many more clergy ignore those teachings at great risk to their souls.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No. I heard about Pope Pius XII about ten years ago. I read a very brilliant Catholic economist whose religion I did not know. This was important because when you need to actually do something with economics besides spout about morality, you want every blasted theory explained to you clearly. That’s because all good economic theory, from Smith, to Malthus, to Marx, to Galbraith, to Ricardo, etc., etc., etc. helps you out. So when you get around to working the equations & the macroeconomic consequences of public & private policies, you are well armed.

            In any case, this fellow was superb. So one day someone started yelling on line about his foul religious beliefs. I am not kidding, this actually happened. I looked into matters and discovered, low & behold, that the SSPX had set one of their immoral attorneys (is that a needless adjective) against this poor man. That’s when I started learning all about these heretical schismatics. The only WWII Catholic I had heard about was Bishop Von Galen, whose sermons can be accessed here:

            http://kirchensite.de/downloads/Aktuelles/Predigt_Galen_Englisch.pdf

            Now Von Galen had nasty characteristics, but if he had not had them, he would not have been able to be a credible German in the Nazi empire. Thanks to him, the T4 programme was stopped in Germany. Unfortunately, all Adolf did was restart things in Austria, where most of the killings of disabled persons ultimately occurred. One way to think of things in this light is to remember how awful King David was in so many ways. That notwithstanding, God used him for God’s purposes.

          • Gerard

            Who are you talking about? Who is the Catholic economist and who is the “immoral SSPX attorney?” It’s all smoke unless you actually give something verifiable.

            Somehow, I have a feeling that knowing the names of the people you refer to will reveal what your real beef is and I have a suspicion that it’s not the SSPX but Catholicism and its “spouting about morality.”

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            As that person is very likely reading this, I will not bother him. You can readily figure out who that person is by, well, looking things up yourself. Enjoy yourself. As for the rest, you’ve called me dishonest so many times, I could care less what you think.. The reader will be able to discern the truth concerning SSPX.

          • Gerard

            Again, I’m not interested in proving your assertions when you simply refuse to name the names of your “proof.”

            I asked you who it was and you refused to provide the info. So, your accusation and the whole story is worthless.

            And Frankly, the only reason I’ve called you dishonest is because you are dishonest. I’ve demonstrated it with the very posts on this thread. I’m morally obligated to rebuke you. It’s called a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

            If you don’t accept the rebuke and make amends, God will hold you accountable and you can go where your acts dispose you towards for eternity. Good luck with that.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Hm. No real proof of intention to mislead, so how can you know for certain I am being dishonest?

            Tell you what. What is your opinion of the following assessment of Jews:

            Thus, the Jew of all times has lived in the states of other peoples, and there formed his own state, which, to be sure, habitually sailed under the disguise of ‘religious community’ as long as outward circumstances made a complete revelation of his nature seem inadvisable. But as soon as he felt strong enough to do without the protective cloak, he always dropped the veil and suddenly became what so many of the others previously did not want to believe and see: the Jew.
            The Jew’s life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states explains a characteristic which once caused Schopenhauer, as has already been mentioned, to call him the ‘great master in lying.’ Existence impels the Jew to lies and to lie perpetually, just as it compels the inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing.
            His life within other peoples can only endure for any length of time if he succeeds in arousing the opinion that he is not a.people but a ‘religious community,’ though of a special sort.
            And this is the first great lie.

    • Gerard

      Please….stop embarassing yourself with these trumped up accusations. Deal with the anti-Catholic hatred on your end and the persecution of Catholics like the SSPX and you’ll be a lot happier and open to the grace of conversion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

  • RoxanneRoxanadana

    At this point, it might be wise to let the debate end. When one claims a Jew with whom one converses is ignoring Jewish crimes against Christians, he wants the conversation to end.

    Most important for all is to read this article with care.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/01/magazine/l-affaire-touvier-opening-old-wounds.html?pagewanted=7&src=pm

    Any offense against me, intended or otherwise, as respects anti-Jewish statements is fully forgiven by me. Without them, no real discussion would likely have occurred. More distressing, however, is attaching Pope Benedict to SSPX, something people who do not like him tend to do. Please learn what Pope Benedict did, a bit redolent of Pope Alexander III’s dealings with Frederick Barbaraossa (at least to me).

    More important is to recognize the argument with respect to Pope Pius XII. Anyone with three or more decades on their back knows persons they deeply admire who turned out to be absolute monsters–that’s the story of Othello. More relevant, however, is the story of Joab, who was indeed one of King David’s trusted associates. If you learn about that story, you will better be able to answer anyone who suggests that Pope Pius XII would have approved of SSPX.

    I am deeply gratified by Father Longenecker’s willingness to let me post here on this vital topic. May it be that all reading this enjoy good health.

    • Gerard

      I would love to start the conversation. But only on the paradigm of honesty. It’s amazing how when one wants equal terms, the full context of history and facts cited, that is somehow “interpreted” as wanting the conversation to end. The inference drawn can only be that a level playing field in which each party acknowledges and takes ownership of failures and flaws on their side of the issue or issues is unacceptable to the party avoiding the honest aspect of the discussion.

      And in keeping with the objective viewpoint in evaluating what has occurred, frankly, there were no “anti-Jewish” statements on my part. No rabbis were called “Pigs” as priests were, no Jews were accused without proof of collaboration and labeled “Nazi” as a saintly archbishop was, no guilt by association was implied for anyone disagreeing, no comments by self-identified jews were twisted into smears about supporting “chattle slavery.”

      I had asked in light of keeping a single standard and a test of good faith discussion for examples of Jewish persecution of Christians in history to be cited by self-identified Jews of whatever persuasion who seem to have no compunction about accusing others without proof but only vague references.

      And I certainly would rather take ownership of the history of the members of the Lord’s Church and stand on the solid ground of truth with appropriate mea culpa’s where warranted before criticizing others.

      But readers can decide for themselves whether or not, simple questions were answered with provocative outrage, insults, smears and other attacks and an adamant unwillingness to hold everyone to the same standard, They can determine whether that is indicative of anti-Catholic attacks.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        I had hoped to leave, given that you were asking for examples to justify gassing Jews (no matter what you say, that’s what “Jewish crimes against Christians” implies).

        Let’s restate matters.

        1) Being an accessory after the fact (no matter how you phrase it under any legal system the idea is the same) makes you a party to the crime.

        2) Lefebvre & his entity were accessories after the fact with respect to Touvier.

        3) This implies Lefebvre was a Nazi War Criminal. This is vital because similar accessories after the fact let the Nazi’s work their magic in South America, resulting in genocide of the Ache indians & Videla’s monstrous reign of terror.

        Now. If you can prove Lefebvre & SSPX were HUNTING DOWN Touvier & not hiding him, the palm goes to you. But you have not done that. You have not supplied relevant evidence to contradict the notion that Lefebvre & his entity engaged in a criminal conspiracy rendering them Nazi war criminals.

        You claim a willingness to acknowledge faults of Catholics, but the only Catholic individual you cited with negative connotations was Dutch Schultz.

        I do wish you well personally. May it be that you have a long & healthy life. No expectation on my part exists for you to come around as respects to your finagling the public to believe you or SSPX, in destroying Jews, represents a high form of love of neighbor. Instead, all that is desired is for the public to read the article themselves & make up their minds. If they are convinced SSPX hid Touvier, well, Lefebvre is a Nazi & SSPX is a Nazi entity like the SS was. If, on the other hand, Lefebvre made every effort to help the police catch the fiend, again, you are right.

        • Gerard

          Correction: You don’t know the difference between imply and infer. What you mean is, no matter what I say, you will infer that any jew anywhere doing anything wrong being admitted by you or even mentioned by anyone is a justification for throwing jews to the lions…errrr…I mean gassing jews. At least that’s the unsupported assertion and false accusation you’re making against me.

          The only Catholic with negative connotations I’ve mentioned is Dutch Schultz? That’s an infinite degree more than the negative connotations you’ve associated with self-identified jews.

          So far, you’ve just used your venom to call priests pigs and nazis. (absurd claims at that. )
          It’s so obvious that you are not interested in “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” You’ve got a ton of rocks that you’re going to toss regardless of sin.

          You can call the seal of the confessional and the Catholic principle of Sanctuary being an accessory if you like. I’m just curious as to whether you think murderers taking refuge in israel makes Israel guilty of the same. You probably don’t because you operate on double standards and different rules for those you attack and persecute.

          I wonder if ghouls who pimp out the holocaust for their personal advantage are accessories in the persecution of the Catholic Church because they support lies against Pope Pius XII?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            1) “[N]o matter what I say, you will infer that any jew
            anywhere doing anything wrong being admitted by you or even mentioned by anyone is a justification for throwing jews to the lions…errrr…I mean gassing jews. At least that’s the unsupported assertion and false accusation you’re making against me.”

            Neither Act A [throwing jews to the lions] nor Act B [gassing jews] is justified by Act C [my admitting the existence of a crime committed by a Jew (such as Dutch Schultz, Meyer Lansky, or Bernard Madoff)] nor Act D [anyone mentioning that a Jew (such as Moe Greenberg) committed a crime].”

            2) “The only Catholic with negative connotations I’ve mentioned is Dutch Schultz? That’s an infinite degree more than the negative connotations you’ve associated with self-identified jews.”

            Where have you have not made negative statements about Catholics other than Dutch Schultz? What makes you believe negative characteristics of Dutch Schultz, an element of the set “Catholics”, infinitely worse than those of a group {Dutch Schultz, Moe Greenberg, Meyer Lansky, Bernard Madoff, Bugsy Seigel, Bob Filner} that is a subset of the set “Jews”?

            3) “So far, you’ve just used your venom to call priests pigs and nazis.”

            Nothing penned be me implies the set “priests” is a subset of either the set “Nazis” or the set “pigs”. My words do impy elements of the set “priests”, such as “Father Tiso” & “Marcel LeFabvre” are also elements of both the set “Nazis” & the set “pigs.” Prove otherwise or stand convicted of logical fallacy.

            4) “It’s so obvious that you are not interested in ‘Let he who is without
            sin cast the first stone.’ You’ve got a ton of rocks that you’re going
            to toss regardless of sin”

            That bible passage is known to not be authentic. The evidence presented to prove the assertion that Lefebvre & SSPX were Nazi’s by being accessories may be said to be a “ton of rocks” when compared with the evidence you have presented to the contrary, which is not even a pebble.

            5) “You can call the seal of the confessional and the Catholic principle of Sanctuary being an accessory if you like.”

            How does the principle of Catholic sanctuary justify hiding a person known to be a murderous war criminal?

            6) “I’m just curious as to whether you think murderers taking refuge in israel makes Israel guilty of the same.”
            SSPX is not a country. In contrast to the relationships between SSPX & the countries where it operates, extradition treaties govern transfers of criminals between countries. If Israel has not turned over murderers to other countries with whom it has extradition treaties, that would very likely be unjust. Please cite three examples of Israel not turning murderers over to other countries with whom it had extradition treaties at the time the murderer was not turned over for prosecution.

            7) “You probably don’t because you operate on double standards and different rules for those you attack and persecute.”

            This makes no sense. One adjudges matters differently (has double standards & different rules) as respects 1) the set “entities governed by laws of countries”, whose elements would include the Boy Scouts & SSPX, & the set “countries”, whose elements include Russia, the United States, the Vatican, & Israel.

            8) The concept “ghouls who pimp out the holocaust for their personal advantage” appears chimerical; on the other hand, it may simply be a difficult concept.

            ghoul noun 1.an evil demon, originally of Oriental legend, supposed to feed on human beings, and especially to rob graves, prey on corpses, etc.; 2.a grave robber.; 3.a person who revels in what is revolting.

            pimp noun 1. a person, especially a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer. 2. a despicable person. 3. Australia and New Zealand. an informer; stool pigeon. verb (used without object) 4. to act as a pimp. verb (used with object) 5. to act as a pimp for. 6. to exploit.

            Please explain what you mean. Give ten examples of persons who are “ghouls who pimp out the holocaust for their personal advantage”.

  • Gerard

    Roxanne wrote; You wrote: “That bible passage is known to not be authentic.” when referring to John chapter 8, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” By what authority do you make that denial of its authenticity?

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Keith, Chris (2008). “Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)”. Currents in Biblical Research 6 (3): 377–404.

      See the notes on John 8 here: https://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+8

      Now it is in line with the teachings of the Gospels, but most scholars apparently feel the passage is not original.

      • Gerard

        How a few (not most) agenda-driven scholars “feel” about the authenticity of the Scripture is not an authoritative viewpoint. The criteria for “inauthenticity” is absurd. Don’t you think there should be laws to throw “deniers” like this into jail?

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          This is scholarship by religious scholars, including Catholic religious scholars. If you want to call them all Satanic too, be my guest, but they are doing an honest job attempting to work with ancient texts. Your reference to “deniers” would seem to imply I favor jailing those who say the Holocaust did not exist, such as former Archbishop Williamson. That’s untrue. Instead, it is far more fun to debate them in public & whack them with the truth.

          Don’t be afraid to say you believe not one Jew died in the gas chambers if you are in the US or the UK. No one will put you in jail for that. It would actually be a blast to debate you on that one, you know. Former Archbishop Williamson would have not the slightest problem saying that in the US or the UK. David Irving did not either, you know. The reason he went to Austria was because he was not getting the attendance at his SSPX type lectureship that he wanted. So he went to a place where this was illegal (Austria), violated their law in such manner as to spit in the face of the judicial system there, & suffered the consequences.

          • Gerard

            It’s shoddy scholarship based in Modernism using what is called the “historical critical method” It’s not really a science and it’s not really a study of history and it’s not anthropology. Thanks for your permission to call them Satanic. I’ll be sure to ask when I want to call a priest a Nazi or a Pig to ask you as well.

            If you’re as accurate in your discussions of WWII events, as you are in properly identifying people like “former archbishop Williamson” that would be a fun debate to watch. Whenever I’ve peered into the topic of the Shoah / Holocaust (the non Calvary version) I always hear the same type of braggadocio from advocates for the Holocaust, but they tend to disappoint. I haven’t delved into the topic much and have a few books that I have yet to read on the subject before I would be comfortable with a conclusion, but I do think there are other factors when outrage and laws are put on the books that just involve questioning whether or not numbers and events are accurate. The 50 million dead number concerning the Inquisition is one such parallel. The numbers from the Gulag Archipelago are freely debated in numbers ranging in differences of tens of millions. The lowest of which dwarf the highest numbers of Holocaust victims of all sorts. An interesting documentary called “Defamation” by Yoav Shamir showed some of the most interesting varieties of attitudes concerning WWII and the effects of those attitudes in people’s careers and what looked very much like the indoctrination of people and children in Israel. Abe Foxman of the ADL does not come off well in that film especially when he discussed the “Ukrainian Holocaust.”

            I once asked a non-religious friend his opinions on various “conspiracy theories” of the well known variety. And after JFK, 911, The moon landing hoax, Roswell and others, he said, (slight paraphrase) “I sure hope the holocaust deniers are right.” I was shocked and said, “Why would you say that?” He said, “Because that would be a great crime that humanity would not have committed. Who wouldn’t look for proof of the lowest death toll possible? Weren’t you glad to hear that it was only 3000 people who died on 911 instead of the feared 40 to 100,000 that were bandied about in the immediate aftermath of the buildings coming down?” I would be curious to know what you would think if despite all of your currently held beliefs it were to turn out that basically the “deniers” were closer to the real numbers than the more popularly accepted narratives. Would you be disappointed or think “Thank God!”

            But as I prepare for my studies on the subject, which books would you recommend that you have already read? Since you’ve mentioned him, which David Irving books have you read? I have read none of them, but you’ve got me curious.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Please form some sort of conclusion. It would be hard to imagine that even 10% of Jews had heard who Cardinal Pacelli or Pope Pius XII was. Unusual would be the Catholic who had not heard about six million Jews were murdered. What do you think? Do you think it was a lie?

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    Be honest. No true Catholic is a Jew-hater.

    Prayer for the Conversion of the Remnant of Israel

    “God of Goodness and Father of Mercies, we beseech Thee by the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and by the intercession of the Patriarchs and Holy Apostles, to look with compassion upon the remnant of Israel, so that they may come to a knowledge of our only Savior Jesus Christ, and share in the precious graces of Redemption. Amen.”

    The Conversion of the Jews

    “According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): “For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob”.

    See: Catholic Encyclopedia: General Judgement

    Judaism’s Strange Gods – Michael Hoffman II

    “In this scholarly and deeply considered work, the author documents his provocative thesis that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament, but the newly formalized belief system of the Pharisees, which arose in Babylon with the commitment of the formerly oral “tradition of the elders” to writing, in the wake of the crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah and the destruction of the Temple. Basing his findings on authoritative Judaic sources, Hoffman demonstrates that Judaism is a man-made religion of tradition and superstition, which represents the institutionalized nullification of Biblical law and doctrine. Liberating the reader from the accumulated shackles of decades of misinformation, this book shows that Judaism’s God is not the God of Israel, but the strange gods of Talmud and Kabbalah, and the racial self-worship they inculcate.”

    BOOK – Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman (.pdf)

    AUDIO – Judaism Discovered – Michael Hoffman with Jeff Rense (Full Interview)

    BOOK – Judaism Discovered by Michael Hoffman (.pdf) – http://downloads.umu.nu/Books/Michael%20A.%20Hoffman%20-%20Judaism%20Discovered%20(2008).pdf

  • RoxanneRoxanadana

    M. Gerard is a most pleasant person to post with, but he seems less able to answer questions than before. Although there are a number to ask him, the vital one, for me anyways, concerns the following exchange:

    Roxanneroxanada. “Now the Talmudic rabbis, from their study of the bible, concluded that anything but three things are good acts if they result in saving a life: 1) Murder, 2) adultery, 3) public idolatry. Because Touvier committed murder, his acts are unjustified.”

    M. Gerard. “And your diatribe about the Talmud is an argument from the authority of the Talmud. Why impose your religious beliefs (when convenient and to your personal advantage) on me and in the same breath try to enforce
    them through the politically malleable legal system while denying the
    same to the SSPX or Catholics in general?”

    Stating what many consider vital in Jewish wisdom would seem to be imposing religious beliefs to M. Gerard. Although this was not my intent, let me provide evidence that it is not by asking one question.

    What is the corresponding SSPX belief?

    The world bears multiple differences in beliefs. These are quite fascinating.

    • Gerard

      I’ve been more than willing to answer questions than you have “Roxanne.” You have yet to make the distinctions that justify your selective outrage concerning the Vichy gov’t and the collaboration of Jewish groups with Romans in the persecution of Christians. You haven’t made the distinction between Touvier, or Petain and Caiaphas. So, again, your accusation and attack is hypocritical.

      Re: The Talmudic description you give. It basically says that lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving, defrauding, calumniating, scapegoating, backbiting, gossiping, bribing, threatening, inciting hatred are all good acts if they result in saving a life.

      The Catholic position espoused by the Church and reiterated by the SSPX condemns all evil acts intrinsically.

      The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

      http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-fifth.shtml

      The simpler Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas:

      http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Aquinas_Catechism/acomm05.htm

      The more bare bones Catechism of St. Pius X

      http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pcomm05.htm

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        My question was likely stated with insufficient clarity.

        Assume a baby were in danger of being run over by a car. Would it be a sin to lie, steal, or do whatever was necessary apart from killing someone else to save that baby’s life?

        • Gerard

          Catechism of the Catholic Church:

          1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39 (2479, 596)

          1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (1735)

          II. Good Acts and Evil Acts

          1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

          The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts—such as fornication—that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

          1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            That does not answer the question, good sir. All you have done is repeat a few paragraphs that might be interpreted any which way you want. Given what you say & your characterizations, it would follow that stealing a red sash from a clothing stand to flag a car to avoid killing the baby would be wrong. Why?

            1) Taking a red sash is stealing property.
            2) Stealing is inherently wrong, being one of the ten commandments; assuredly far worse than lying, which is not against the ten commandments per se.
            3) One cannot commit evil, in this case, stealing, to do good thing.

            Hence, your morality would argue that the baby must be run over by a car to serve the higher good. That seems bizarre. Are you sure that’s what you mean to say?

          • Gerard

            You’re confusing the idea of “stealing” as any use of material. Your imagined scenario is not about stealing. It’s certainly not theft nor robbery. But rather about urgent needs and utilizing materials at hand for a particular good out of the normal mode of living.

            http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm07.htm

            Aquinas answered your question over 700 years ago, “Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.”

            http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article7

            Needless to say, if the calamity is avoided or not and you pocket the sash and don’t pay for it or return it, at that point, you have stolen.

            It seems you have a superficial understanding of any of the vices and virtues and their vital distinctions as well as a full understanding of the 10 commandments. Your ethical decisions must be so intuitive and incoherent, you would benefit from a reading of St. Thomas or at least the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

            And yes, lying is forbidden by the 10 commandments. It’s “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”

            http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm08.htm

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Bearing false witness, provisioning false testimony, is a nasty perversion of justice. In the good old days, offenders received the punishment intended for the victim; if X said Y put a spear in Z’s belly when in fact Y merely walked across the street before X’s bull gored Z, X got the death penalty. Claiming Barak Obama was not born in Hawaii is not in the same class of offenses.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If you took the materials at hand without there being the intent to save a life (or do something important like put out a fire about to blow up a car), you would definitely be stealing. The intent to save the life changes the act from stealing to something different. That’s the same as saying what would be sinful under other circumstances is a good act when it comes to saving a life. The analysis of St. Thomas s different from that of a rabbi, but the result is identical.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            While you ponder matters (there’s a doctrine some friar told me about choosing the lesser of two evils, but he was obviously a heretic by your standards), consider this here news story. Cutting across lanes of traffic like this is ordinarily a sin (I would hope you would agree with that or agree never to drive where i live). Nonetheless, this milk man is definitely a hero, His breaking the law to save this woman’s life was a good deed (or, if you wish to use the friar’s example “choosing the lesser of two evils”).

            For one Beach milk man, what started out as a normal shift delivering milk and eggs turned into much more than he bargained for. The Oberweis truck driver, who wants to remain anonymous, says he helped a woman escape two armed robbers early Wednesday morning while stopped on Lynnhaven Parkway and Viking Drive. “As I turn around, I’m out the truck getting something I need to get
            and this girl throws herself in my truck begging and pleading for help and help,” he says. “At first I thought I was being set up for something, but she legitimately looked scared.” She asks if he will drive her to meet a friend, but when he turns a corner, he realizes he’s being followed. “She looks over and says, ‘Oh that’s them’ and ducks down on the floor board and I’m like what and they’re pointing the gun out the window at me and I’m trying to floor it but I’m in a big ‘ole truck.” As a gun is pointed at him and the woman, he tries to stay calm, and calls 911 while cutting across several lanes of traffic to evade the men speeding towards him. “She was legitimately in fear for her life,” the Oberweis truck driver says. “I kind of was too, but I had to keep it cool.” Eventually he meets up with police at a McDonalds. Cops take over, chasing the men to Tidewater Drive in Norfolk, where both are arrested. With the woman safe and two now behind bars, the milk man says doing the right thing only cost him a few broken bottles of milk.

            http://wtkr.com/2013/08/01/beach-milk-man-helps-woman-escape-armed-robbers/

            Notwithstanding the sin of endangering folks a bit by cutting across traffic, this guy did a good deed by me (& I am positive the friar would have said so too). By your analysis, it’s sinful.

          • Gerard

            I’ll assume the friar is not a heretic but explain that I’m guessing what the friar is mistakenly trying to refer to is the principle of “double effect.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

            That’s far different from “the lesser of two evils.” You can’t pick evil.

  • Pablo Schwartz

    one of the heroes of the Traditionalist movement:

    “Today is the feast of our founder, St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe, O.F.M. Conv., (January 8, 1894 – August 14, 1941), who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in the Nazi German death camp of Auschwitz, located in German-occupied Poland during World War II.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X