Dr. Zmirak,

Thank you for this powerful meditation. I've already sent the link to two email groups before I finished reading it and I keep finding more gems such as this one:

"In other words, we're killing the King and dragging Mother Nature to bed by the hair."

Ouch.

Kamilla

I could have done without the reference to God as "Big Daddy." No wonder people laugh at the idea of God, if even a Catholic can refer to Him this way.

The secular media made a big deal of Benedict being the first "German Pope" in centuries. The Germans are a more diverse people than Americans realize, and often Americans think of Germans as Prussians: rigid, militaristic, humorless, etc. The Bavarians are different, artistic, fun loving, and often with a good sense of humor. These are the people who gave the world Oktoberfest after all. As head of the CDF for many years, people got the impression of Ratzinger the cop, enforcing doctrine, cracking down, etc, without realizing that this is not the totality of the man. Benedict the Pope is not just about cracking down, but is also about Benedict the intellectual, writer, and thinker. Benedict does not have the stage presence of JP II. So what? He doesn't need to be JP II, he can be himself which is more than enough.

Austin, you have well delineated the very cultural reason that when you enter Bavaria on the Autobahn, the sign: "Welcome to the Free State of Bavaria" greets you! They are a people apart from the rest of the German confederation, in a wonderful way. Like Texas, it's a whole n'other country. German Pope, indeed. Bavaria Pope, thank you very much. Care to guess my heritage?

Calling Ratzinger a "Rottweiler" because he actually believes what he says he does was always unfair. And surely someone who was press-ganged into the Wehrmacht from seminary hardly deserves to be tarred as "Hitler Youth", let alone "Nazi". One wonders if people would be so unforgiving of a child of the former Soviet Union for having been a Young Pioneer.

Williamson doesn't deserve to be let off the hook, although I don't fully understand the ramifications of excommunication. shouldn't he at leasr repent and recant? And if not, isn't he in major theological trouble for not accepting the accepted authority? An analogous situation in my congregation wouldn't be callled up to the Torah, for sure, but we'd let him in for services.

Pope Benedict seems to be trying to manage the situation, and I doubt that anyone without his clear convictions would have had the guts to act as decisively after the fact. You've got a good leader there, and that is a blessing from G-d. I hope we welcome him to Israel appropriately. "For My house will be a house of prayer for all people."

Thank you, Chana, for a reasonable voice from among our Jewish brethren, most of whom I think probably agree with you. Unfortunately, the loudmouth extremists in any group--see Bp. Williamson in the SSPX!--tend to get the media's attention and are thus able to commandeer the story to mirror their own take on it. That does NOT mean that they represent the majority view, however.

An excommunication is a juridical sanction that separates Catholics who hold/practice/preach heretical views, and/or those who make other grave errors against the teachings of the RC Church. It's not a banishment, per se, but in order for the SSPX priests (incl. Bp. Williamson) to be fully integrated into the RC Church again, they must renounce the ideas that separate them from the Church and from the Holy Father, and they must confess and receive absolution for those sinful acts they have committed while under excommunication. Then they can be united fully with the Church, receive and confect all of the sacraments (in the case of the clergy), etc. The SSPX has not yet met all of these requirements, so they are not in full union with the Holy Father and the RC Church yet. Think of the Pope's lifting of their excommunication as a fatherly gesture calling them to repent, obey, and re-establish their membership in the Church.

To clarify a misunderstanding (so powerfully echoed and perpetuated by the mass media since the furor began), Catholics have freedom of conscience and speech in matters not directly pertaining to moral teachings and doctrines of the Church, so the Pope would have no right to excommunicate Bp. Williamson again simply because he holds a (despicable and anti-Semitic) view of the Holocaust. He is, however, being pressured within the SSPX and within the Church as a whole, to wholly renounce those views that he has long expressed in regard to the Shoah. Hope this makes some better sense of the issue!

I pray for a fruitful and peaceful visit of this Pope to the Holy Land, birthplace of the Abrahamic religions!

Chana: Shabat Shalom. Speaking as someone who was raised as a Catholic, but who has a Jewish grandfather, I am sensitive to anti-semitism in the Church. Given Benedict's background, where he was pushed around by the Nazis in his youth, he knows more about Nazis and real anti-semitism than most people in the media. I trust him to do the right thing with Williamson and others.

As John Paul [another Pope who saw the Nazis close up] said:
"The Jews are our older brothers." We should never forget it.
le'chayim!

"Fatherhood, authority, patriarchy . . . these aren't "happy" words anymore."

When I see in Church each Sunday little, and even older, children clinging to their fathers, being held by them, holding their hands, looking up into their faces, it brings me to tears for what I missed. I can tell you that was NEVER seen in the Church through the depression, the War, the pre-Vatican II years. Surely this will count for something in the way today's children will understand God.

I am wondering why Williamsons views about the holocaust, as despicable as they may be, should be reasons for re-instating excommunication, since I do not find anything in that view in direct conflict with church doctrine. On the contrary, if he sincerely has doubts about that particular part of history, doesn't the 8th commandment compel him to voice his doubts? And shouldn't be his silence or his sought-after affirmation of something he believes to be a lie, be a reason for his excommunication? I guess the good Lord will be the judge of that.

"Imagine trying to run a Church that makes room for Roger Mahony ... and Richard Williamson.)"

I'll try to imagine it but since the Cardinal banned Williamson from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles...(The Jewish Journal March 3, 2009) http://tinyurl.com/d8mdbn

So while the beat-down on Bishop Williamson continues, perhaps some of you could rectify the following, given the accusations against him:


1. Why do the figures from the International Red Cross, which had continuous and unfettered access to German Concentration camps, show less than 300,000 Jews perished in the camps? Use the Google.

2. Why do the I.R.C. reports show that death rates in the camps amongst Jews were no higher than any other demographic?

3. Why do the I.R.C. reports show that death amongst inmates was not unusually high (compared to prior war figures)until the last year of the war, and that the primary causes of death were from starvation and typhus? (Note that Germany was in full retreat on both fronts, was under almost nightly saturation bombing, and supplies went to the military and civilians first.)

4. Why do the I.R.C. reports show that Zyclon B was used to disinfect everything from mattresses to prisoners, but says absolutely nothing about gassing inmates?

5. Why did Zionist Jewry refuse two separate offers from the Germans, one in 1940 and another in 1941, to release all Jewish prisoners from Concentration Camps? Google "True Torah Jews" for a wake-up call. (You'll just love the answers...)

6. Why did Zionist Jewry also claim in 1917 that "Six million Jews had perished in WWI"? Use the Google, sayeth the ex-President. And a follow-up: Does the number "six million" mean anything special to Talmudic Jewry?

7. Why was there not a single mention of the "Holocaust" in any of Churchill's post-war writings, nor in those of Eisenhower's or any other principle involved?

8. Given the above, why is Bishop Williamson being pilloried?

9. Why are the fifty million dead Orthodox Christians murdered at the hands of Bolshevik Jewry not considered victims of a "Holocaust"?

10. Explain the following statement from "The Jewish Encyclopedia": "It would be a mistake to assume that our roots are of the Israelites of the Old Testament, but, rather, our roots are in Phariseeism".

11. What was the opinion of Jesus regarding the Pharisees?

12. Given the quote in #10 and the filth in the Talmud, how is it even remotely possible to assume a "Judeo-Christian Heritage"? What is it? Phariseeism and Christianity are really one and the same?

13. How is it genetically possible for a group descended
from a Turko-Mongol stock to truthfully claim genetically Semitic origins? (Google Khazars, Ashkenazi Jews)

14. Why have Jewish historians such as Dr. Arthur Koesstler and Dr. Shlomo Sands argued that what is believed to be European/American/Israeli Jewry are not "Jews" at all, but adopted the faith while in Khazaria during the A.D. 800's?

15. Why do Catholic and Islamic histories from that period show the exact same circumstance?

16. Why are we so willing to believe lies? ("My people perish for lack of knowledge.")

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you think you know that just ain't so" - Mark Twain

Just to be clear, everybody--whomever the "John" above may be, the fellow who seconds Bishop Williamson's opinions, it isn't me and his views aren't mine.

Dear John,

The ignorance displayed in your ridiculous and vile post in #11 above demonstrates remarkably clearly how conspiracy theorists cling desperately to their preconceived notions and search in vain for any "logical underpinnings" to excuse their very illogical and indefensible rantings. IN the case of anti-Semitic views like yours and Bp. Williamson's, you seek validation for your hatred borne of God-knows-what cause; meanwhile 9-11 Truthers seek validation for their uncontrolled hatred of GW Bush/the American gov't/the CIA/neocons, and of course, Jew hatred (e.g., the Mossad helped the neo-con Bush cabal to plan and carry out the Twin Towers attack, warning Jews of it ahead of time, so none were there on 9/11! Ah-hah! See? The Jews did it!")

Please be aware that your rants, while they may appear to you and others of your viewpoint to be internally logically impeccable, appear patently hate-borne and in no way logical to anyone not sharing your bigotry.

While I do not share the views expressed by John - and if I would, I would keep my mouth shut, so as not to end up in a German jail - it is nevertheless upsetting that outsiders who do not share what we hold to be the ultimate truth and even denigrate it, feel they have the right to tell us, who we can admit into our midst and who not. I have not heard the holy father prescribing to the Jewish community, which one of their rabbis needs to be kicked out of the congregation because of their rabid anti-Christian or anti-Muslim views. Are we as Christians children of a lesser god?

Golly. The last thing I ever thought I would receive is a "Dear John" missive from a fellow named Kevin. I'll somehow get over it.

John Zmirak deftly steps in with a comment distancing himself from my argument, and why he felt such was necessary is a bit difficult to understand. The contents of his penning clearly outlined his perspective as a defender of the prevailing orthodoxy, and how he presumes anyone could somehow confound his content with my queries and statements borders on the assumption that his readership is bereft of intellect. Come now, John! I enjoy your work! (And "great link" to Dawson's piece!)

To Kevin's commentary...

Dear Kevin,

You accuse me of posting a comment that displays "ignorance", is "ridiculous", "vile", and then ice the cake by accusing me of being "anti-Semitic". And I'm apparently full of "hatred" and I'm a "bigot". You may as well have mimicked Carly Simon and sang, "You're so vain" while you were at it. I hope you feel better now.

What you failed to do was address a single point I introduced. As is the norm with either the ignorant, the zealot, or the intellectually dishonest, when confronted with facts that they find uncomfortable, they respond not by attempting to dissect the argument, but by hurling pejoratives at their perceived opposition. The object of the use of the pejorative is to "win" through silencing the opposition and making subjects taboo, not by success through the use of cogent argument. Pejoratives are apparently all you are armed with, because that is what you used.

It is painfully obvious that you made absolutely no effort to challenge your preconceptions or your intellect before penning your response. Were you to have done so by utilizing those incredibly tough to operate "search engines" as I suggested, you may well have succeeded in broadening your intellectual horizon. Start with question one and work your way through it. Kevin, we no longer live in a geocentric universe, and I do think you can handle a bit of truth.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good lie...

Regarding 9-11 and Williamson, I hate to break the news to you, but the good Bishop isn't alone in his views, nor all these "Truthers" a bunch of nutcases. Frankly, given the historical record of "False Flag Attacks" by governments, as well as the manipulation of others into military attacks to create causus belli, only the willfully blind do not question whether any and all governments are telling the truth.

Flat-out lying is fairly effective as well, as the "Gulf of Tonkin(non)Incident" demonstrates. Robert Stinnet's "Day of Deceit", though supportive of F.D.R., clearly shows that F.D.R. knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor weeks before December 7th. To get the U.S. in the war, F.D.R. et. al. consciously chose to keep 7th Fleet Admiral Kimmel ignorant of the circumstance to maximize the damage to U.S. forces. He played roulette with others lives for a political purpose.

If you doubt Stinnet, who wrote armed with F.O.I. documents next to him, read the D.o.D budget for FY 2001. It's boring in many ways, but instructive as well. Inserted was language exonerating Kimmel for the exact reasons cited above, as he barely escaped Court Martial during the war.

And flat-out lying put us into Iraq as well. No one seems to really care though, as the dead, dismembered, displaced, and those forever contaminated with depleted uranium are "the others", not us.

Kevin, Google up "The Zionist Plan for the Middle East", written in 1922 by uber-Zionist Theodore Hertzl. Read it, and then ask yourself just one question. Since it appears that plan is being executed right now, are my views anti-Semetic (an genetic impossibility anyway) or anti-Zionist?

God Bless all of you...

(p.s. - Google "Jews College (Socino)Babylonian Talmud" and read all 5.5 million words. Judge for yourself.)

...it's possible to find all sorts of "facts" to back up one's preconceived notions. We are human beings, we are sinful creatures, and we all have skeletons in our closets. If people dig hard enough, they can be found. You can character assassinate any individual, or you can formulate histories of sins committed by whole groups of people, especially with the help of modern technology. Catholics, Mormons, heck, probably even Mother Theresa herself. Doesn't mean squat in the long run, as long as one remembers that the human soul is fallen by nature.

By all means, try to convince yourself, John, that you are the holder and defender of "truth." As for me and mine, I'll stick with the Truth that the Catholic Church has been charged to defend by Christ Himself. Oh, and let it be known that Christ was a good Jew Himself!

Please, moderators, time to do some cleanup in these comments!

Kevin's assertion that Christ was a "good Jew" will probably not be accepted by those that are of that faith. And for those of us who follow his words, he was the first Christian, just as Mohammed was the first Moslem and not a "good pagan", and Martin Luther was a Protestant and not a "goood catholic".

Certainly Jews can not bedevil him on one hand as a "sorcerer and heretic" and dismiss his teachings as "false and lies" and at the same time take credit for his deeds. Thus it still amazes me when people describe followers of the Jewish faith as "our older brothers". Would this make Muslims our "younger brothers"? well, at least they respect the founder of our faith.

4. Didn’t the International Committee for the Red Cross report that only 300,000 people had perished in the German
concentration camps, not all of them Jews?

The Red Cross never issued such a statistic, nor has it offered any estimate of the number of victims who perished in the camps. In its bulletin of February 1, 1978, the Red Cross declared that it had never compiled, much less published such statistics.
The 300,000 figure was actually taken from the Swiss paper, “Die Tat,” in 1955. This estimate, however, was only a figure for the number of Germans who perished in the concentration camps. No mention of any Red Cross figures, however, was ever made by the paper.

I think John (not Zmirak) was/is hoping no one would check....

FWIW...I think the "truthers" are a bunch of nutcases (LOL)

I usually don't bother, as I assume the information cooked up by Truthers and other such conspiracy theorists is easily refutable (and FWIW, I absolutely count Holocaust deniers as conspiracy theorists!)

Thanks, as well, for being charitable in your responses. I am usually so disgusted with people who profess anti-Semitism and/or deny the Holocaust that I can't bring myself to spend the time to correct them in charity. Perhaps it's the American cynic in me, and perhaps it's firsthand experience with a Rad Trad friend who spouts invective against the CFR/North American Union/Amero currency/modernism in general--not that I agree with modernism either--but I find that no amount of dialogue, even in sincere charity, ever makes a dent in their fevered mindset. Every possible rebuttal is seen as yet another piece of the larger conspiracy, not as evidence counter to their claims. I'm personally convinced there's a deep hatred at the base of many of their claims, but I'm willing to admit that it's something less sinister, if that's the case. Ignorance? fear of the unknown and lack of control of one's life and surroundings? Any thoughts from others with firsthand experience with conspiracy theorists, whether secular Truthers or RadTrad Holocaust deniers?

Much prayer is needed, and we must always commend our doubts to the Lord and ask for His Grace to accept that He is Lord of all, and that we are powerless children who must trust Him!

P.S. No, I don't count all Traditionalist Catholics as Holocaust deniers, nor am I inclined to disagree with many of their practices, which I support as long as they maintain obedience to the Holy Father and the Magisterium. That, of course, was where the tradition-seeking good folks among the SSPX were led astray.

Look at their eyes when they talk about this stuff. It's the thrill of being in on some secret knowledge. I expect the 2nd and 3rd century Gnostic heretics got the same look in their eye.

Getting back to the main theme of John's post. I agree, the Holy Father's letter had the same effect on me: "How lucky we are to have such a wonderful father!" Let's all show our appreciation for his paternal leadership with love, prayers and letters to him.