Traditionalist Catholics & Antisemitism

The Southern Poverty Law Center has put out an "intelligence report" suggesting that Traditionalist Catholics are often antisemitic. The article mentions Mel Gibson as an example, but goes on to make generalizations about Traditionalist Catholics that are not flattering. The overall tone of the article is that Traditionalist Catholics are a growing threat and people should sit up and take notice.

Here is the article: The 'Synagogue of Satan'

One of the most interesting things the article mentions is the idea that the Antichrist will be Jewish.

The Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church were of the opinion that a personal Antichrist will come just before the end of the world and be accepted by the Jews as the Messiah and enthroned in the temple at Jerusalem.

One of the reasons the Church Fathers believed this is this verse from the Gospel of St. John:

I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. (John 5:43)

An excellent exposition of the Church's understanding of the Antichrist can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Antichrist

Catholic Answers provides these articles about the Antichrist:

The Antichrist by Jimmy Akin
The Antichrist (Church Fathers)
The Antichrist (Fathers Know Best)

Antisemitism is sinful, and it cannot be condoned, and there do appear to be elements within Traditionalist Catholic circles whose statements about the Jewish people in general are, at best, politically incorrect (and perhaps imprudent), and at worst, antisemitic.

It seems to me that the best way to view anyone not of the Catholic faith is as a potential Catholic. The last thing you want to do when explaining the Catholic Faith to people is to antagonize them.

I would never encourage altering the Catholic Faith so as to make it appealing to anyone. We should never give people the false impression that one can be a good Catholic, but differ from Church teaching on matters of faith and morals – and a lot of people do need to hear what the Church teaches (and why) when it comes to faith and morals – especially in terms of sexual morality or the gospel of life. However, at the same time, I would say that Catholics should definitely make an effort to use prudence when presenting elements of the faith that are controversial or could be easily misunderstood. Jesus did not reveal his Divine Nature to the Apostles and lay out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity all at one time and in the early stages of His ministry to them. He revealed Himself and the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity gradually.

I can't tell you how many times I have cringed inside when hearing a Catholic "explain" Catholic teaching on any number of issues and inadvertently mangle the authentic teaching or illustrate the teaching in a way that is actually heretical. Evidently, lots of Catholics think that Sunday Mass attendance or what they understand to be a general knowledge of the Faith makes them qualified to teach the Faith. This often amounts to what they have imbibed over their years as a Catholic, and/or is dependent upon the competency with which their own catechetical instruction was carried out – and as many people know – Catholic catechesis in the United States has generally been abysmal over the last 40 years or so.

Any well catechized Catholic who has ever sought to teach the Catholic Faith, especially in an academic setting, where grades are involved, can tell you that there is often a sense among the students that catechism is a waste of time, that "we already know this stuff" (and they really, really don't), and my personal favorite (heard from parents and students): you can't give a grade in religion class, because there are no right or wrong answers (cringe) or because you can't grade someone's relationship with God (a depressingly silly perspective rooted in the error that religion is entirely subjective). Lots of people who are not qualified to teach the Catholic Faith believe they are qualified and attempt to do so, and lots of people who believe they already understand the Catholic Faith (but don't) are frequently their pupils.

I can't tell you how many times people have tried to explain the Catholic Faith to me (especially in relation to the Second Vatican Council) who completely misunderstood Church teaching.

Explanations of the Catholic doctrine of The Blessed Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Immaculate Conception, and other teachings about The Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as about Catholic teaching on moral issues can easily become mired in error if not given by someone with a solid grasp of Catholic doctrine. Subjects like the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church, or of predestination can lead to confusion and hinder people from embracing Catholic teaching if they are not explained properly.

I would put Catholic teaching about the Antichrist in a similar category. Although I am personally fascinated by it and have read a few books on the subject, it seems to me that one isn't likely to convert many Jewish people to the Catholic faith by saying terrible things about Jews and then launching into a dissertation on how the Jews are destined to follow the Antichrist.

Part of the problem comes from lumping all the Jews into one category. That isn't any more accurate than lumping all Catholics into one category, and the potential for confusion and error snowballs from there.

Bottom line: Just as it is unjust to portray all Traditional Catholics as dangerous antisemites, it is equally unjust to make sweeping generalizations about the Jewish people either.

The other important lesson is that when explaining the Catholic Faith, make sure you know the subject matter you are discussing. If you aren't sure about something, don't give your best guess as a definitive answer. Tell the person you don't know the answer, then look it up and get back to them. All of us have a moral obligation to know our Catholic Faith and be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us, and we must always take great care never to misrepresent Church teaching when explaining the Catholic Faith to others.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Aaron]

This is an important subject. I stopped attending SSPX Mass because of a sermon in which the priest railed against freemasons and "international jewry." It was strange to say the very least. If anyone doubts that anti-semitism is alive and well among traditionalists, just browse the traditionalist blogs. You will find posts with titles like "The Perfidious Jews," and arguments in support of the execution of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. Furthermore, you will find links to writings by authors whose anti-semitism rises to the level of jew-hatred. As the traditional Mass becomes more widespread, we must address this issue.

[Aaron]

Let me make clear: I consider myself a traditionalist, and I pray for the universality of the Traditional Mass.

[Kris]

This story is another spawn of political correctness. Traditionalists and any orthodox Catholic usually aren't afraid to say that the Jews, though exceedingly faithful, have got it all wrong and are in danger of forsaking their salvation. Consequently, the anti-Catholic media has to spin this and bring up the age old claim of anti-semitism within the Church.

I'd like to see the same type of study done on the relationship of the media to Catholics.

[T. Shaw]

Anti-semitism is always sinful. It exists among how many(?) Catholics. All thirteen of them need to be corrected.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a long time bolshevist front (KGB/comintern backed until the USSR imploded) whose mission still is to destroy our way of life and religion in the US. The Catholic Church and others are the main obstacles in the way of their socialist progressive agenda.

This massive, ad hominen libel (exaggeration, distortion, repetition - all Catholics are evil) reminds me of the time in early 2003 when the execrable A. Sullivan called Pope John Paul II a traditional Catholic anti-semite for his opposition to the US invasion of Iraq.

The progressive atheists murdered 44,000,000 innocent babies. When Church sanctioned anti-semites murder one Jew, I will take notice.

[Aaron]

Whoe DOESN'T consider this anti-semitic?:

http://pinoymonk.blogspot.com/2006/07/prayers-for-perfidious-jews.html

This post was linked from "The Sacred Weblog of the Universal Inquisition" who is blog-rolled on Rorate Caeli.

[Patrick]

I have been attending indult Latin Masses, whenever possible, since the mid-nineties. There have never been any anti-semetic comments.

David Horowitz, who is Jewish, has had some disputes with the SPLC and has this to say:

"The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights."

When a non-Catholic expresses an interest in the Catholic Faith I usually provide him with appropriate reading material. Whenever you see copies of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Baltimore Catechism, Confraternity Bibles, etc. at rummage sales or thift stores you should grab them. You will then be able to provide trustworthy books to potential converts. Recently, a Presbyterian, who would like to join the Church, received six such books from me.

The most difficult issue to explain to a possible convert is the danger of heterodox instruction. If the convert gets mixed up with the wrong parish or CCD program he might receive a counterfeit version of Church teachings. But, care must be taken not to scare the person off.

[Ellen]

Of course there is a strong anti-semitic thread in Traditionalism.

Has anyone read the thoughts of Archbishop Williamson lately?

The thread discussing this on Angelqueen is amusing. The theme is "How dare those Jews accuse us of being anti-Semitic for telling the truth about masons, communists and...uh...Jews!"

[Jeff Miller]

Unfortunately there is a large segment of antisemitism's in what is called traditionalism. Just look at what happened to Robert Sungenis a promising Catholic apologist and convert who went off the deep end with his group and started publishing articles from white supremacist publications.

[Patrick]

Maybe it would help if someone were to offer accurate definitions of the terms "antisemitism" and "Traditionalist Catholics."

Some people have made the claim that the New Testament is full of antisemitism and that Christianity is inherently antisemitic.

I don't know what the SSPX people have been saying about Jews. However, I was under the impression that Traditional Catholicism has grown much bigger than the SSPX and the small sedevacantist groups out there.

Maybe someone would like to clarify the terms for us?

[joanne]

Has anyone ever explained or edited the anti-Jewish writings of St Thomas Aquinas? It is very difficult to read the "Summa" if you're Jewish or female without taking offense. Writings like those of our great doctors of the Church that go unexplained do not help the "anti-Semitic", anti-feminine impression we give sometimes. St Thomas wouldn't mind if we cleared up this issue; what saint would?

[Natalie]

That many believe there was no Holocaust? That some say every pope since 1958 has been illegitimate, and a few even insist the real pope has been kidnapped?

Isn't this only the view of SSPX? I admit that I don't much about the traditional circle so any insight would be appreciated. I would hope that denial of the Holocaust isn't very big since I honestly don't know how anyone can deny that it happened. I think your thoughts are spot on Thomistic.

[Loyolalaw98]

More than 15 years ago I visited the Lefebvrite seminary in Connecticutt. I don't remember if they were formally the SSPX at that point. In their bookstore, on a rack of religious pamphlets they were selling the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

I immediately left. If it hadn't been winter I might have stopped at the side of the road to shake the dust from my penny loafers!

I've often thought that there is a remarkable strain of anti-semitism in France, especially among SOME French traditional Catholics.

Marshall Petain "wrapped" himself in both the tricolour and the Rosary.

[Aaron]

WOW!! I just read the discussion thread on this article at www.angelqueen.org! The question of whether Trads are anti-semitic should begin and end there. It is quite depressing. Jew hatred is alive and well at Angelqueen!

[Teófilo]

Antisemitism is sinful, and it cannot be condoned, and there do appear to be elements within Traditionalist Catholic circles whose statements about the Jewish people in general are, at best, politically incorrect (and perhaps imprudent), and at worst, antisemitic.

You are right on that one. Check out, for example, the folks of Tradition in Action. Their open Anti-semitism is vile, repugnant, and ultimately Anti-Christian.

-Theo

[David]

Consider this statement:

“Modern Talmudic Judaism is Parasitical and largely anti-Christian.”

Is this an anti-Semitic statement?

[Thomistic]

I smell a setup with that last question. It was probably said by a Pope or a saint or some person we would not generally like to disagree with on matters of Faith.

[Patrick]

Aaron,

It may help if we know who you consider to be a "Trad." I have never attended an SSPX Mass or heard of Angelqueen. But, I consider myself to be traditionalist.

My concern is that some people reading this blog may be frightened away from indult Latin Masses. Some of the above comments conjure images of dangerous looking people wearing Nazi arm bands goose stepping down the aisle during the Communion procession at your local indult TLM.

I trust your assessment of the SSPX Mass which you attended. However, I have never witnessed any antisemitism at the indult TLMs which I have attended. Over the Years, I have seen some pretty nutty websites claiming to speak for the traditionalist movement. However, they usually turn out to be the product of angry, renegade nuts.

Please check out the following websites for non-schismatic, non-antisemitic traditionalist news and information:

unavoce.org

and

http://fssp.org/en/index.htm

[Thomistic]

Excellent points and contributions, Patrick!

Pax,

Thomistic

[Aaron]

Patrick:
I agree with you 100% . . . which is why I am so aggresive in my denunciations of what goes on among the Lefevrites. With all do respect, their numbers dwarf those of the scattered indult communities. Their voices are louder, they publish books, they throw their weight around in French political disputes, they are a major power in the world of Catholicism. The anti-semitism must be addressed or the Traditional Mass will go the way of the dodo bird. No one is saying that all Trads are anti-semitic. But MANY are. That is a major problem.

[Annie Witz]

I have heard many awful things about Jews from lots of trads. One guy who goes to a independent chapel told me even if I loved the traditional Mass I still hadn't really converted(I am a convert from Calvinism)because I supported the state of Isreal. (Political reasons only) I go to an Eastern Rite and love it. I hope I never convert to a religion that hates Jews.

[A Simple Sinner]

Let's be a bit more clear about WHO are rightfully to be called traditionalists!

I take this article to task for one thing above all else: It loosely bandies about the term "Catholic" as though the term can be self-applied to ANYONE who adopts the moniker. I think of these groups as being NO MORE Catholic than the odd-balls at the "Women's Ordination Conference" who claim to be ordaining women priests.

In all irony great pains and efforts are made to demonstrate that Muslim terrorists are a distinctive subset of folks far removed from the day-to-day lives and faith of modern Muslims, while implying that Gruner and his ilk would EVER be welcome in the Vatican let alone represent a faction of Catholics IN GOOD STANDING.

More plainly, it does not identify that these aberational groups are ex-communicated or clearly without faculties to serve as priests.

But again, who can accurately be called CATHOLIC traditionalists?

* Is it in Catholic tradition to set up rival hiearchies to Rome?

* Is it in Catholic tradition to disobey a directive from Rome?

* Is it in Catholic tradition to set up parishes and chapels outside of the jursidiction of the local ordinary?

* Is it in Catholic tradition to publish material as Catholic without the imprimatur?

* Is it in Catholic tradition to set up an alternative process outside of Rome for the annulment of marriages?

I say NO. That attachment to previous liturgical expressions are NOT enough to be considered a traditionalist. You may look how Catholics used to look while doing these things, but you certainly do not behave as Catholics used to do.

So granting some ecclesial communities conduct themselves in a fashion similar Catholics of bygone days, that is not enough. Otherwise we could all merrily become Anglo Catholics or Russian Orthodox or whichever.

The point? Lets be clear: the traditionalists to which this orig article alludes are NOT in good standing with Rome. They are NOT the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King. They are folks who have gone their own way, Rome be damned.

Maybe, just maybe, this odd ugly, un-Catholic behavior futher illustrates why we must value Roman Communion and Petrine authority just as zealosly as the likes of Cardinal Kung in China or the Greek Catholics of the Soviet Union. Just "looking Catholic (traditionalist)" is not enough.

Outside of full communion with Rome, I contend aberations - large or small - will always creep in. Perhaps in the case of these seperated Christians who fancy themselves "Traditionalist" this is the ugliest most apparent manifestation.

[Annie Witz]

To the simple sinner,
I say Amen to your comments.St Thomas Moore, St John Fisher, and Josaphat of Polotsk I am sure are saying it too!

[Teófilo]

Folks, Mr. Mark Potok sent me this message in reaction to my blogpost, which I now want to share with you:

Pedro,

Thanks for the heads up. I have a couple of responses to your response. First, I'm somewhat mystified as to how my editorial got posted to various traditionalist blogs without the bloggers noticing at all that in fact this was just the lead-in to a huge package of news stories about the radical traditionalists. There are, in addition to the editorial, about six highly detailed stories, including one that includes detailed profiles of 12 major radical traditionalist groups. People are taking the editorial as the whole story, and that's not remotely true. I'm amazed at this, but there it is -- there's another 20,000 words or so on this, completely unnoticed.

Here's the url that will get you to the whole package. Three of the sidebars are right next to the main; the fourth, "The Dirty Dozen," is listed in the right navigation bar:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/i...cle.jsp? aid=719

My second point, re your criticism of us for not drawing a sufficient distinction between radical traditionalists and traditionalist, I refer you to the follow paragraph in our main story:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/i...le.jsp? pid=1292

"Vatican II did not ban these time-honored celebrations, and many Catholics who call themselves "traditionalists" continue to worship in this manner in churches that remain an official part of the Holy See (these churches are awarded an "indult" that allows them to continue celebrating the Latin Mass). The vast majority of those who practice Catholicism in this older form are unrelated to the radical traditionalist Catholics who gathered in Philadelphia. Indeed, the groups that gave presentations at the CFN conference preach a theology specifically rejected by the Vatican, and many have been declared schismatic, or officially separated from the church."

I appreciate your comments, your interest, and your courtesy in letting me know what you'd written. I'd be curious to know what you think about the whole report, as opposed to my summarizing editorial up front. Perhaps you could even post it to the traditionalist sites that also, apparently, have mistaken the editorial for the entire package of stories.

Very sincerely,

Mark Potok
Director, Intelligence Project
Editor, Intelligence Report
SPLC

[c.a. Marks]

I am very confused by this because in my RCIA classes, our Deacon and all of the instructors, were very favorable of the Jewish religion and I do believe, if I remember correctly, that they made sure to let us know that our faith, the Catholic faith, came straight from the Jews. Yes? No? What? Our heritage came from the Jews? Yes? No? What?

Or something like that....

In other words, our instructors never said a mean or hateful thing about the Jewish religion, in fact, they absolutley honored it.

At the end of our classes and right before Easter, we had a Seder Meal - is that not a Jewish thing or what?

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

[jcanary]

I couldn't believe I had to wade thru all
the remarks till the last one to see that someone still remembers that we Catholicss are indeed spiritual Israelites. I for one am with St. Paul who very forcefully asserts that the Jews are still God's Chosen People
that does not mean he approves of all they
do any more than he approves of all we do.
WE do have to recall that not all who call
themselves Jews are believers AS not all who
call themselves Christian - but those who do the Father's will. And the bottom line in all of this is that even Faith without love
is worthless. Traditionally as I undertand it = Chritians were recognized by their love