Beautiful!

"This is a lesson worth remembering in the midst of a testy political season. I am grateful to Ralph Reed for believing it possible, and to Bill Donohue and Pastor John Hagee for being witnesses to a friendship in Christ that can overcome the most bitter differences."

They don't call Him a miracle maker for nothing!

These are the most important things that happen during a political season. Thanks for sharing!

Excellent! And something to keep in mind the next time one's internet foil trespasses one's sensibility.

Despite Deal Hudson's claim to the contrary, John Hagee's anti-Catholic bigotry hasn't miraculously disappeared due to some staged meeting with Bill Donahue. Hagee is a dispensationalist who believes that the secular state of Israel is the chosen land. Not only is this pure heresy, it has political implications as well. His "theology" dovetails with the interventionist foreign policy of neoconservatives who have taken over the Republican party.

Whatever happened to defending the Faith against the vile attacks of heretics like Hagee? Apparently Donahue and Hudson will put their Faith on the shelf when the White House is at stake.

RK - Put a sock in it!

Must you bemoan even a victory for civility?

This illustrates that while what divides us must not be minimized or ignored, Who unites us (namely Jesus Christ) must also be invoked and counted upon in faith. Thanks for sharing the good news!

So, what you're really saying is, when a heretic calls the Pope the Anti-Christ (never mind the obscene names he uses for Our Lady) don't bother Frederica about it because it's "uncivil" to draw attention to it! As long as Bill Donahue and Deal Hudson don't mind I suppose you're alright with it too. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dear Hudson,

Well done, good and faithful servant. You are always in my prayers, Deal.

I remember back when all this first unfolded how edifyingly stunned I was at the courage and humility of the three of you. My view was far more cautious because I could see the acceptable bigotry being hurled at Catholics from self described Christians on a regular basis.

I was silent in my trepidation at the time. I thought the meeting to be an opportunity for "Christians" to misinterpret once again and go on the attack. Often silence and prayer is the best response for those who not only do not want to believe as Catholics do, but also any explanation sparks real hatred. One can almost smell the sulfer in the air. Better if the bigots have as their last memory of the encounter, their own vehement remarks as the last thing they have ringing in their own ears. It seems to me it may lead to their own conversion.

I have no idea how many times my own inappropriate remarks have led me to repent. They are many. On a good day I pray the Lord will guide my tongue. Too bad those days are so few. Anyone who reads this is welcome to pray over my, and others' words, that they may be used for the good, for God's honor and glory.

"This illustrates that while what divides us must not be minimized or ignored, Who unites us (namely Jesus Christ) must also be invoked and counted upon in faith."

As long as we keep this in mind when discussing Senator Obama, women priests, pro-choice politicians, and other internet faves, we can claim a degree of progress.

More to the point, Rev Hagee, like many evangelicals, do not have a clear view of Roman Catholicism. Personally, I'd like to see him repudiate the Bible Churches' practices of sheep-steaking and targeting young Catholics for pseudo-evangelization. If Deal arranges a meeting between him and me, I would make the request. I'd also be just as polite as Mr Donohue was.

How sad that such trolls as the one above can overlook the efforts of reconciliation for the love of Christ, in order to wallow in self-righteous indignation like a Pharisee shaking his robes. One can only wonder if RK witnessed Our Lord forgive an adulteress or praise a Samaritan, if he would pour forth the same vitriol.
But for those who see even small steps toward a moment of unity and understanding as being pleasing to Christ, this article is edifying indeed.

Some points are simply non negotiable, e.g., women Catholic priests, and the destruction of innocent, human life. Civility, yes; acquiescence, no. Mambypambyism is a sure sign of weak faith.

Chimney meet kettle. I love irony and this small individual calling someone else a Pharisee is rich.

It's unfortunate that we live in a time where "civility" and human respect are more important than forthrightness and a willingness to point out the truth. The facts about John Hagee's anti-Catholic vitriol have been well known for years. It should be of concern to Catholics that those sentiments are merely swept under the rug to serve the paltry common cause of partisan politics.

Anti-Catholicism is one thing, Zionist eschatological foreign policy is another.

Do we really want to see the "possibilities" of an alliance with a view that suggests blowing the Muslims off the temple mount in order to rebuild the Temple to bring the Rapture around?

This is a profoundly dangerous view.

I was a dispensationalist, I grew up in churches which tended to dispensationalism. My mother is a dispensationalist, and periodically still hands me a sheaf handouts describing dispensationalist interpretations of end-times prophecies.

The dispensationalists, with the possible exceptions of lowbrow yahoos who exist in every large group, do not believe in "blowing the Muslims off the temple mount"; in fact, they hold that no initiation of violence on the part of Christians is either justified or intrinsic to end-times prophecies, even under their interpretation.

They hold, instead, that it is all on "God's time-table" and that one of the ways that Christian (by which they mean dispensationalist) eschatology is superior to radical Muslim eschatology is in the fact that it doesn't permit people to launch wars to make it happen, or quit their jobs thinking it's about to happen, or in any other ways break the rules because it might happen. They say that whereas Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council are obligated to participate in a holy war and escalate it to a conflagration sufficient to recall the Mahdi, any Christian who thinks he can prod YHWH into a faster time-table, especially by some immoral act is confused in the extreme.

They do believe in assisting the Jews to rebuild their Temple. They do believe that the end-times prophecies will happen during a time when there are many Jews in Palestine and the Temple is rebuilt and sacrifices are being offered there.

Some (not all) of them believe that the correct location for the rebuilt temple would require the mosque to be gone. Some anticipate earthquakes or similar divine intervention in that regard. But there's still a conflict there.

But it's not quite what you imply in your note.

RK:

According to you, John Hagee:
(1.) Still openly preaches anti-Catholic rhetoric;
(2.) Calls Mary The Mother Of Our Lord "obscene names";
(3.) Duped Donohue and Hudson...

...is that correct?

Care to back that up? Are you confident that you're not enjoying that rush of outrage, of anti-anti-Catholic sentiment, a bit too much?

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Our Lord gives us no assurance that our trespasses can be forgiven under any other circumstances.

Respectfully, R.C.

P.S. I'm tempted to hold on to my outrage against, uh, a certain family member for a certain betrayal. As a consequence, I have a lot of "frequent failure miles" on this point. Please understand, then, that I don't mean to seem "holier-than-thou" in what I wrote above.

Did you ever work with a Jew on a social justice project? Politics is something we can reach across to other people and work the field in good faith for an ending that serves God. The result of the outreach and mercy was Haggee regretting the things he said and therefore, will never say them again.

Nobody is acquiescing the tenets of our faith.

Apparently you think our Lord and the Blessed Mother would reject somebody who wished to make amends. Pick up a copy of Divine Mercy and practice the Chaplet at 3:00 ever day. Mercy is powerful tool, give it a spin!

Nothing has changed, protestantism is a heresy and Hagee is one of it's chief heretics.

I am Catholic, but I have more issue with Donohue than Hagee. Why is he criticizing other Catholics for goind/teaching against Catholic teaching, when he supports Homosexual Civil Unions. He needs a real education on Church teaching and a lot of humility.

Timothy:

Better make sure you don't exceed the Church, there, friend, or start channeling Father Feeney.

Uniquely Protestant doctrines like Sola Scriptura are heretical (and incidentally not intellectually defensible).

Protestants who've examined these doctrines, compared them to their Catholic alternatives, are aware of the correct meanings and best available defenses of each, and still remain Protestants, are heretics. You know: Fellows like Oswald Chambers (!!) and C.S.Lewis (!!!), if that provides any perspective.

But people who grow up in Protestant households hearing only Protestant theology taught, with no exposure whatever to the Catholic church except driving by the outside of one of her buildings, are not heretics (that is, guilty of the sin of heresy). They are "separated brethren." They, like Apollos (who knew only John's baptism, see Acts 18:24-26) do not have the "fullness of the faith" and would, if their hearts are willing, benefit if someone "invited them to their home" and "explained the Way of God to them more adequately."

Look, I'm sure Hagee said a lot of nasty things prior to his rapprochement with Donohue. I'm sure he thinks some bassackward things, even now.

But who's deserves the most condemnation, the man who blathers out of ignorance, or the man who knows what's true and rejects it? And how best do we emulate Priscilla and Aquila? Perhaps by emulating Hudson and Donohue?

Anyway I doubt it's by darkly calling someone "heretic"; especially when, given his upbringing, accusing him with that sin is a stretch.

And it doesn't help outreach to other folks who're raised Protestant, but who're open to learning more about the Catholic faith. I should know, 'cause that's my biography.

Had I said some boneheaded thing about Catholics in pure ignorance, as I easily might have done a mere five years ago, I suppose I'd have deserved a verbal slap. But unless I misunderstand Church teaching on this topic, the correct slap would have been to be called "bonehead," not "heretic."

Respectfully,
R.C.

Why permit a comment to be posted like the one above?

It is obvious it's not a person posting something in good faith. Do you really want these spaces to be people of good will have to wade through dung before their morning coffee? At some point, normal people stop commenting, then they stop reading the comments and finally, they stop visiting.

For what it's worth.

RC snuck in there...

Just thought that I would add a perspective:

It helps me to remind myself that in the days of the Early Church, there wasn't Television, Internet or Radio. We only have the "heresies" of that time that were written down. We can be sure there were "heresies" born every day.... especially as they took the Gospel across long distances and into new cultures.

Wherever there are human beings communicating there will always be misunderstanding and a need for clarifying dialogue.

The hatred in the words of some of you simply point to your misunderstanding of WHAT is going on here. GOD is communicating the TRUTH across humanity and HE is using willing vessels, even Today to do so. The Vessels are imperfect. It is going to take ALL of US, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and in HIS Presence (as manifested by the presence of LOVE and Constructive not Destructive WORDS) to accomplish HIS Vision for THIS WORLD.

Donahue and Hagee and Hudson had to be willing to let go of there arm's length.... knowledge of each other.... in order to openly dialogue. It was in that SPIRIT, that the Union JESUS emphatically calls us to, could manifest in a miraculous way.

Much of the divisions that exist today will matter not at all when you or I stand before JESUS on THAT DAY.

I love you, all of you; and I wish you would conduct yourself as if in the presence of JESUS.......... for HE is here and
He wants to remove the sword from your hand, as He did with Peter. You can and must express your concerns and disagreements in a constructive manner in union with HIM and with the FAITH that GOD is and will accomplish HIS WILL!

He doesn't support civil unions any more than he supports same sex marriage.

R.C.,

Thanks for your comments.

1. I'm not convinced of the veracity of Hagee's apology. The words of apology come easy to some, especially when there's political leverage at stake. I've not heard any particulars on why he suddenly renounced certain long-held positions. If his comments have remained bigotry-free for a period of time, well, I might be ore inclined to believe it. I hope I am wrong. I hope he he has a conversion to sacramental Faith. At this point there's nothing to indicate any serious retraction as far as I'm concerned.

2. He has called the Church the "whore of babylon", which some believe is also a reference to Our Lady. While he now claims he was merely using common protestant parlance it seems a pretty convenient excuse for him to make. He's also called the Pope the Antichrist and likened him to Hitler. These are extreme statements and I think it's a mistake to cavalierly disregard them.

3. I don't necessarily think they were duped. However, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they all agreed to make a deal and put their differences aside for the sake of the election.

Hagee is a major proponent of dispensationalism, which you apparently have some familiarity with. You'll have to acknowledge that this branch of protestantism is militaristic and has a special affinity for Israel and it's political role in the world. This, of course, dovetails nicely with the neoconservative agenda for the Middle East. It doesn't seem like a stretch to expect any alliance between Hagee, Donahue and Hudson to include assent on commonly held suppositions about neoconservative political aims.

To Anon: I have many Jewish fiends with whom I've worked on numerous projects though, admittedly, never a social justice project. While "reaching across the aisle" can be a fruitful endeavor, principles should always be carefully deliberated upon and there should not be a hesitation to "walk away from the table" when those principles become negotiable tender.

You hope he has a conversion to sacramental Faith, by displaying that that faith is unforgiving to people who offer apologies?

Win an argument, lose a convert, huh?

You make a fair point. I guess I'm sort of a doubting Thomas. Except St. Thomas doubted Christ, whereas I'm doubting someone who hurled cruel epithets at Christ's Church. Leopards don't usually change their spots. If I'm proven wrong sometime in the future I'll gladly eat crow.

RK:

A very well-considered reply, sir. Thank you. Here are my responses:
Quite reasonable. Time will tell. I note it's been since, what, May? ...and Donohue, whose antennae are usually somewhat sensitive to such things, apparently hasn't heard anything to suggest that Hagee's gone back to smacking Catholics. But when it's been several years we'll feel more sure.
Hmm. It's one thing to conclude that you've been needlessly suspicious of the bona fides of another Christian denomination and that, despite differences in theology, they're every bit as Christian as you are and every bit as well-intentioned.

It's another thing entirely to come to the conclusion that your own upbringing was erroneous and that the other folks are actually right.

The first conclusion is sufficient for Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians and such to all attend the same Christian concerts without discomfort. As I'm sure you know, Baptists and Methodists and whomever usually get along just fine; they see no reason to rail against each other despite their theological differences; they differ but continue to respect one another without thereby having to change their own opinions.

As I understand it, Hagee's change is that he now has fewer or no qualifications about seeing Catholics (and, one presumes, Orthodox) in the same light: We're "all Christians together."

But is Hagee currently in RCIA? I very much doubt it. He'd have to have encountered the argument that Sola Scriptura is not a Christian doctrine. It may seem utterly amazing to a cradle Catholic that a thinking Christian wouldn't consider this possibility, but I assure you that it's an utter blind spot among Evangelicals. I've thought quite seriously and analytically about my faith since I was thirteen or so when I first read Evidence That Demands a Verdict and Mere Christianity. Yet I assure you the possibility that Sola Scriptura might not make sense, might not be the core foundation of understanding Christ's teachings, didn't occur to me until I was thirty-five...leading to my investigation of the Catholic Church.

All that is to say: Hagee could easily have switched from being a very anti-Catholic evangelical, to being a very pro-Catholic evangelical, without having even yet considered the question of whether, on the points where Catholic and "Reformed" theology differ, the Catholics might be right. That blind spot could persist for decades.

I think it would be unfair to insist on signs of the second change, before we're willing to allow that the first change has taken place.

...continued...

...continuing...

Well, then "some believe" wrongly.

While my upbringing amongst Evangelical Southern Baptists does not mean I can speak authoritatively about all evangelicals, I think it gives me a quite good insight.

When these anti-Catholic guys talk about "the whore of Babylon," they're absolutely not talking about Mary the Mother of Jesus. They're talking about how, according to off-hand things they've heard, the Catholic church "sold out" the doctrines of Jesus, becoming instead a liberalized (think: like the Episcopals...certain excesses in the wake of Vatican II may have influenced this) and stratified (think: like the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Resources) and insincere (think: sale of indulgences) institution which teaches works-oriented-righteousness (think: people who think that as long as they're not obviously evil, they won't need "any theological mumbo-jumbo" to get into heaven).

They are therefore picturing an organization, a sort of Dan Brown-esque fantasy, whose flock are so poorly catechized as to not be able to answer how a man may be saved when asked...and which has added to "Scriptural" Christianity a lot of adoration of Mary as if she were God.

But these anti-Catholics would be shocked if you said they were calling Mary herself "whore." They think, rather, that Mary herself is probably saddened by all this excess adoration being paid to her, when she wanted it paid to her Son.

I know that this (fantastical) picture of the Church as a human organization is far from flattering. You might even be inclined to think it no better than if they were calling Mary a "whore."

But it is better, for of course actual encounters with real Catholics (if the Catholics in question are well-catechized, know Scripture well, know why Scripture is not self-sufficient, and are gracious mirrors of the Love of Christ) will be sufficient to undermine this fun-house-mirror impression of the Church. And perhaps their concerns over Marian devotions are no very bad place to begin, when catechizing them about the difference between veneration and adoration?

...continued...

...continuing...
It's possible...though it would require Donohue to be a bit shady and dishonest, if that were the case, because of the way he's "sold it" to his fellow Catholics. I mean, listen to this:It seems to me that if you want to take the view that Donohue is just putting aside a still-boiling controversy for the sake of the election, you're going to have to call him an overt liar. For this to be plausible, you'd need some past history to suggest that his character is flawed in that way. Do you have any? Has he tended to bend the truth a lot for the sake of politics?

Yes. They believe that at the Second Coming, which they studiously say is "possible any time, but could also not happen for another ten thousand years without thereby invalidating prophecy" will take place at a time when there is a Jewish state, or at least a very large number of Jews, in the areas around Jerusalem and Bethlehem and the areas of ancient Israel and Judah; they believe that the Temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices offered there; they believe that "two witnesses" (some, referring back to the Transfiguration, think they'll be Moses and Elijah) will appear and preach at the gates of Jerusalem; they think that a great catastrophe or war will cause many Jews to flee to Petra in Jordan, and that when Christ appears, these Jews will finally acknowledge Him as Messiah with the phrase "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

Having said that, what do they think we ought to do about it?

Well, they think we should:
(a.) protect Jews from persecution and genocide, even while they still don't acknowledge Christ, not only because because it's right, but also because one day they will acknowledge Him, if they survive long enough;
(b.) prevent Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., from exterminating Jews in Palestine and pushing them "into the sea"; and,
(c.) not allow anyone to claim "moral equivalence" between a Palestinian suicide bomber killing schoolchildren intentionally, and an Israeli tank shell falling on a Hezbollah rocket-site and killing a nearby Muslim kid accidentally.

It's a view which, while theologically flaky in ways, and able to warped so as to excuse any Israeli excess, is perhaps not so prone to evil as some think it is.

Or that's my take. But then my mother is one of these dispensationalists, and she, while she has her flaws, is a good sort overall. It's hard to demonize someone when you know them.

This is a bit late of response but here goes:

I realize that the use of the word heretic is loaded. However, in a time where the Church is under attack from the left(Da Vanci code) and on the right(some misguided conservative protestants), it is important to defend the church. I said protestantism as a momvent was heretical Not that all protestants are heretics. Perhaps, I should have used a more polite word. I have had the "pleasure" of seeing Hagee's television show a couple of time. Believe me, what he teaches is clearly heretical. You are right that our protestant friends are "sperated brethern". Perhaps, I could learn from Donahue's and Hagee's meeting of reconcialiation and reach out in a more friendly manner to other Christians.

You've covered lots of ground and covered it well. I'll try to address some of your points. First of all, I've been to John Hagee's church in San Antonio, and don't consider the members evil. The ones I met are decent folk.

I'll accept your correction about the protestant view of Mary. Regarding John Hagee, I don't necessarily expect him to become a Catholic (although I suppose stranger things have happened). I suppose it would be final evidence that his ideas about Catholics had really changed. There could certainly be other types of evidence as well.

I wouldn't presume to call Bill Donahue a liar. He is, however, a very effective polemicist, as are many northeast Irish, which is an ethnic heritage I also share. He makes his points loudly and aggressively and establishes the agenda in any debate. O'Reilly, Hannity and others do the same thing. I'm quite familiar with his style of discourse and, while I find it entertaining at times, I think there's an awful lot of hot air that comes with it. It's hard for me to take him all that seriously, despite his often agitated arguments.

As far as I'm concerned foreign policy is the most important issue in the upcoming election. I know many Catholics consider a statement like that anathema since abortion is always front and center for most. But I don't think our government is especially trustworthy nor especially competent. Washington is guided by special interests which have gotten us into into foreign wars that have little to do with American interests. Israel is our ally for reasons that are not persuasive. Why should Israel have any more right to protection from Hezbollah and the Palestinians than they have from Israel? Why should Israel be able to have the influence it has over U.S. domestic policy?

Given their assumed consensus about neoconservative policy, it seems questionable for John Hagee, Deal Hudson and Bill Donahue to beak bread and act like everything is alright. These guys have influence over conservative protestants and Catholics. I'm not questioning the state of their souls; I'm questioning the premises upon which they make their decisions about politics.

But if Donahue's point is to carry water for the Republicans right along, why did he criticize Hagee's anti-Catholic speech at all? What you're saying and what actually happened don't match.

Timothy:

An entirely gracious and reasonable answer, sir! Thanks for considering my response without getting irked.

-- R.C.

RK:

Thanks very much for your reply.

Makes sense. I've never been there, myself, so I don't know how bad or good it is. But I'm glad to hear the congregants were "decent folk."


You have my full agreement on that.

Wow, y'know, I never saw that connection before. But you're right. Whereas a lot of folks on the left would connect them by saying, "they're all conservatives" and conclude "Conservatives are all blowhards" (an analysis I've heard more than once), it's a trait I've seen from northeast Irish Catholics on the opposite side of the political spectrum as well. Tho' I'm certain there are exceptions, now that you mention it, it's blindingly obvious.


Well, yes. I have to admit that while I often (not always) come to similar policy conclusions as Hannity, O'Reilly, and Donohue, the way they get there, rhetorically, often leaves me feeling tired.

Apparently the McCook blood in me is sufficient to make me ridiculously susceptible to Irish music (the Christian band Iona, and that little blond fiddle-player in Celtic Woman on PBS, can make me weep or dance, respectively), but it's insufficient to enable me to enjoy The O'Reilly Factor.


Apart from Israel, which special interests do you have in mind?

But now you're getting on to the topic of Israel, specifically. And I'm running out of room in this post...so I'd better address that in a separate post.

...continued...

...continuing...


Well, I suppose we don't need them for an ally, except for intel purposes. But then, that raises the question: Why do we have any allies? There must be some reasons. Whatever those reasons are, do any of them apply logically to Israel?

It seems to me that we have trading partners, and strategic partners, and allies.

Trading partners are countries with whom trade will be beneficial, such as China and Japan.

Strategic partners can be short-term or long-term; China is a short-term strategic partner on the matter of not having North Korea bristle with nuclear missiles, but a strategic competitor otherwise.

Britain is a long-term strategic partner: In nearly every area where we could be hurt, so could they, especially by threats to stable international trading systems.

But allies? I get the impression that an ally must also be simpatico; must also share a philosophy, an outlook, a value system. One would call Japan and Germany our allies, but not China. Decades ago, Iran was a short-term strategic partner against the Soviet Union, whose matching partner was Iraq. But nobody would think post-Khomeini Iran was an ally.

So why is Israel an ally? I think it's because we get intel from them, we have trade with them, and share a common philosophy or outlook or value system with them, much as we do with the Australians. Without that last part, they'd be an unimportant trading partner and a mildly important long-term strategic partner in the region, but no more.

That being the case, why do we lavish them with military help? I suppose it's something we do with allies in general when they're stuck in a bad neighborhood. In this sense they're like South Korea, except that we keep our base and soldiers in South Korea, but we just send the Israelis a lot of cash.

...continued...

...continuing...


The way you phrase that makes me frown, a bit. I put Hezbollah and "the Palestinians" in two different categories. The one is an armed force funded by Iran through Syria for the ultimate strategic goal of destroying Israel; the latter are a group of Muslim, Christian, and Druze civilians. (Yes, they keep electing and empowering Fatah and Hamas to lead them, which is a problem; and yes, they keep indoctrinating their kids to hate and kill Jews and to extol suicide-bombings, but I try to keep that separate and assert that as individuals they're civilians.)

So I don't know that Hezbollah has any "right" to protection from the IDF, nor does the IDF have any "right" to protection from Hezbollah. Of course we wish they weren't at war, but they are, and while there's a cease-fire at the moment, when it eventually heats up again, we can judge the lawfulness of the combatants on both sides according to how much care they take to attack legitimate military targets rather than civilian population centers. If Hezbollah attacks Israel (meaning, her civilian populace) rather than the IDF, then I'm sure you'll join me in deploring it; if the IDF were to attack Lebanon (meaning, her civilian populace) rather than Hezbollah, then I'll join you in deploring that.

As for "the Palestinians," it'd take Solomon to untangle the difficulties there. I think a two-state solution is called for...but how to achieve that, when the Palestinians seem so utterly incapable of fielding anything approaching a civil government? I'm reminded of Bush's frustration with the Iraqis when he complained, somewhat unreasonably, "Where's the George Washington? Where's the John Adams?"

Although I know it causes nearly as many problems as it fixes, I think the "wall" (or fence or barrier or whatever) was a good idea. (Or, rather, the least bad idea.) I feel for the Palestinians separated from jobs, et cetera. But the IDF had to answer every suicide bombing with some kind of military answer, and doing that always put holes in the infrastructure of Gaza and the West Bank. The wall has reduced the suicide bombings to nearly nothing; as a result, poundings of Hamas/Fatah buildings are reduced. Maybe the infrastructure can now re-grow sufficiently to produce something like an economy and a society? Not likely, but one can hope.


It shouldn't. But I do hope that if all the members of AIPAC suddenly vanished (a trick that would leave the dispensationalists wondering if they'd been left behind!), the U.S. wouldn't suddenly leave Israel entirely friendless. In their neighborhood, with their neighbors, I think that'd be evil on our part. As I said before, I think they and we have enough shared perspective and philosophy to elevate them from long-term strategic and minor trading partner, to ally.

But such musings take me into areas where I have insufficient knowledge, and which I've given insufficient thought. So I hope you'll forgive me if my answers were a bit vague.

-- R.C.

Oh, whoops, waitaminute, there!

I just realized that I was reading that last quote rather carelessly.

I thought you were asking why Israel should have so much influence over U.S. policy, generally.

But what you said was,

...to which I need to ask, "To which domestic policy issues do you refer? Does AIPAC have some influence over environmental legislation, or Interstate Highway Funding, or the post-Katrina cleanup, of which I'm unaware?"

Now, I'm being a bit facetious there! But when I think of AIPAC having too much influence, I'm thinking in terms of foreign policy. So I'd like for you to clarify what policies you were thinking of. Let's make sure we're not discussing entirely different things!

OK, where to start? First of all, I included foreign policy as a subset of "domestic policy", which, as you point out, creates needless ambiguity.

There's been lots written about Israel's and AIPAC's influence here in the states. Suffice it to say it's created a conflict of interest for some. Claims of dual loyalty for some in Congress and others are maybe not so far fetched.

Your analysis of allies and strategic partnerships is very good. I would add that the American relationship with Israel has not been well received by much of the Arabic world. And there's been a cost for it. Highly regarded authors like Chalmers Johnson and Michael Sheuer have gone so far as to argue that this relationship was a provocative factor in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

American media generally paints Israel as the victim in the Arab/Israeli conflict. While that may be true at times, can't we assume that our media may be a useful outlet for American propaganda also? For instance the border war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 is generally presented as Hezbollah entering Israeli territory to kidnap the IDF soldiers. There's good evidence to suggest that this actually occurred in Lebanese territory. I'm not defending Hezbollah, which is violent and, as you pointed out, killed civilians. But I think Israel may have been viewed too benignly.

Rightly or wrongly, the Arab world in general believes that Israel is trying to expand it's territory as a means of self preservation. This doesn't sit well with the Arab world and who can blame them when it means displacement for them. Moreover, our complicity with Israel antagonizes the Arabs as well. Frankly, Jimmy Carter's much maligned trip to Israel is the best effort for peace in the region. He was excoriated by the Bush administration, Israel and U.S. media. This reaction reinforces the notion that there are vested interests which don't have Palestinian (or Arab) concerns in mind.

It's awfully convenient to simply dismiss all Arabs as terrorists which we hear so often in this country. Doing do seems like a kind of terrorism in and of itself.

Your point is well taken. But connecting all the dots is above my pay grade (to coin a phrase). I wasn't at the meeting and can't discern their specific motives. Nevertheless, don't you agree that Donahue and Hagee share a common interest relative to U.S. foreign policy?

Man, it's getting confusing with all those "quote" tags when I try to respond. I generally agree with you when you say that Donahue and Hagee share a common interest relative to US foreign policy. I also agree that you weren't at the meeting and can't discern their specific motives. Given that, don't you think we should err on the side of forgiveness, at least until we see evidence to the contrary of sincerity?

I have discussed Israel and the issue of Holy Land Christians with both Rev. Hagee and his associate, David Brog. Once again, I found that both Hagee and Brog were very gracious in discussing our differences. And, as before, we discovered that we agreed on more than we both realized. I appreciate that part of the above thread that attempts to press beyond caricatures on all sides -- it's both instructive and encouraging.

Thanks Deal. Which are the areas that you see where there is the greatest agreement and the greatest difference? You mentioned in the article that there were significant parts of Catholic history he wasn't familiar with--especially regarding the Jews. Could you explain?

RK,

You remind me of Titus.

If I understand your hypothesis correctly,since Pope John Paul II visit with Ghandi or Pope Benedict XVI visit with Jewish leaders did not result in these leaders teaching Catholicism, there should be an inquisition about our differences to flush out the real purpose of the covert operation.

Sometimes we join hands with people of other religions in spite of our differences to bring about peace or defend the sanctity of life and sometimes in the process of doing it, other things happen that are small victories for God and humanity. These things should be celebrated.

Of course we want to group up all people, even those with whom we differ to make sure our political empire doesn't bring about slaughter to the unborn, anarchy at our borders, sitting ducks for terrorists. There is nothing insidious about joining forces, it is common sense.


1. Donohue blasted Haggee for his previous statements which certainly proves his agenda is not partisan politics. (In fact we know he is just as vigilant about Rudy as he is about Kerry.)

2. The world and its circumstances brought conversation,understanding, repentance, forgiveness.


Perhaps on top of it all, the exercise God brought Haggee to see that the way he is expressing himself needs to be changed. It's a lesson many of us have learned along the way.

My mother always used the expression "Leopards don't change their spots". I laughed when you said it. Sometimes that is savvy advice. But you are forgetting that as Christ was being stretched out on the Cross and His Hands being nailed- cruel epithets, spittle on his face, being ridiculed and mocked - his cry was "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

The Family Research Council condonned a vendor selling a stunningly racist item at the recent Values Voter Summit. “Family values” indeed! I guess someone forgot that racism and slander are sins.

Here’s video of the vendors proud to be racist. http://tinyurl.com/5uldtv

Here’s the Associated Press story which describes the item: http://tinyurl.com/6h6ssc

The Values Voter Summit attendees forgot to take the time to act like Christians. They spread the racism, lies and smears instead.

You know how many cartoons there are out there of Palin with distorted features?

Reader, let me tell you something. Painting the religious right as bigots only makes suspicious that if Obama gets in, Christians are going to wind up persecuted for their beliefs and whitey isn't going to make out to well either.

For the record, your guy is the one who spent years training in black liberation theology.

All I can say, Anon, is that you don't listen to your mother enough. You and Andy may be right about giving the Reverend the benefit of the doubt in terms of apologizing for his previous anti-Catholic statements. Although I haven't heard anyone explain specifically or doctrinally how he justifies his retraction, which means it could be just spin.

Even so, the Reverend remains a hard core dispensationalist and therefore a huge advocate for the horrible agenda of the neoconservatives. Religious conservatives have bought the farm on interventionist militarism and that, as far as I'm concerned, makes their judgement questionable at best, unacceptable at worst.

It seems to me that "Reader's" modus operandi on this site is to find a thread where there's a reasonable amount of discussion, dive-bomb it with a pro-Obama or anti-McCain post which is mostly or entirely off-topic, and vanish.

While I think it's appropriate to assume that these threads should be open not only to Catholics but to non-Catholics who're interested in Catholicism, and to lapsed Catholics who retain some fondness for Catholicism, and anyone else whose interest in this website stems from some kind of association with things Catholic..., is it really the right place for partisan "ringers" who're utterly unconcerned with Catholicism per se, and who are looking merely for a convenient website to find and discourage voters of a particular political stripe?

I may of course be mistaken about "Reader." Since, apart from the partisan "bolts from the blue" he has been merely a Reader and not a Writer, I have no way to know whether he's a Catholic, a Jack Chick fan, a Wiccan, an atheist, a minion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just some state-party devotee of Obama who appointed himself apostle to the Catholic vote.

But his contributions seem, to me, to ride the shady side of the line between "slightly off-topic" and "unapologetic spam."

Am I off-base, here? Or am I just saying what everyone thinks?

All I can say, Anon, is that you don't listen to your mother enough.

RK, Definitely!

As Mamma also said, the proof is in the pudding. Near as I know, he hasn't been repeated his sound bites against the RCC.Who knows what he thinks about our religion and who cares, so long as he isn't out in the public square screaming we are the whores of babylon.

I'm thinking of the accomplishment with Haggee in terms of real life- how we have to get up, take the train to work, and use that platform to help our co-workers understand our faith outside of the spin of homophobic, hateful, judgmental, warmongers who don't care about the poor. I thank God for every ounce of looney spin from the MSM (lovingly delivered in a fun political banter)so I can take it, shake the fringe off and bring some understanding as to why we believe and do the things we do. It brings peace, it's made friends, it's unhinged the malice that is attributed to our convictions. I have low expectations beyond that.

RC~~You've hit the nail on the head.

My first question is, why such an unbending opinion about denominations? It is not the church as an organization that will get to heaven, but it is the people IN the church. There are Christians in every denomination that names the name of Christ Jesus. If we believe the Bible is God's Word, we should study to find out what God has to say. It's not what man has to say about the Lord, but what He has to say about Himself. Jesus said, "Ye must be born again." He didn't say, "Ye must belong to the Catholic Church, or the Protestant Church." I don't believe that Jesus cares all that much what we call ourselves. He is going to care if we carried out His will, if we loved as He loves, if we lived Christ-like lives on earth.

For those who don't believe that Israel will be the centre of end-times activity, then I suggest you read the Bible and find out exactly what God has to say about that. His word will come to pass whatever you or I believe or don't believe. According to scripture, Jesus is going to come back to the Mount of Olives. Is that not Israel? Revelations speaks about Jerusalem and the places surrounding it as being the place where the Great Tribulation takes place. God Himself calls Israel His chosen people.

As to Donahue and Hagee, why take the attitude that Hagee wasn't sincere in his reconciliation and that Donahue was? Jesus told us in His Word not to judge others because in doing so we are not only judging ourselves, we are setting ourselves up above God as judge. Only the Lord can see into the hearts of people and know if they mean what they say.

I was blessed with what Deal Hudson reported. The Apostle Paul wrote that we have been given the word and ministry of reconciliation. Mr. Hudson was merely carrying out God's will this situation. We need not accept all the doctrines of other churches in order to be personally reconciled to people in those churches. I don't believe any one denomination has ALL the truth, or is necessarily correct in everything they believe. We are imperfect human beings with imperfect thoughts and interpretations of scripture. Only when we come face to face with Jesus after this life is over will any of us know the full truth. We are still "in school" here on earth.

So let's work together with Jesus rather than divide God's kingdom by useless arguments and doctrinal differences. I'm not perfect yet, nor will ever be on this side of heaven. Neither is anyone else. Some are further along than others, but we still 'see through a glass darkly'. Let's love one another with pure hearts, and forgive one another as Christ has forgiven us. Let's follow Ephesians 4 and lay aside all malice, clamor, bitterness, slander and put on the new self which is created in the likeness of Jesus in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

I pray that God will bless every one of us with greater insight into His word and will and that He will help us to see others as He sees them - through eyes of love and a heart of compassion.

D.S.