Jewish leaders denounce traditionalist’s remarks on ‘deicide’.

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Jewish groups have called on the Vatican to suspend reconciliation talks with a traditionalist group after one of its bishops argued that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus.

“Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics,” Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, said in a statement Oct. 19.

“We call upon the Catholic Church to suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling anti-Semitism within their ranks,” he said.

He was referring to comments by Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of the Society of St. Pius X, who said recently in his online newsletter that the killing of Jesus “was truly deicide, the killing of God” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide” because they clamored for his crucifixion.

Bishop Williamson criticized modern church leaders who have moved away from that position, and said: “Until (the Jews) convert at the end of the world, as the church has always taught they will do, they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.”

Bishop Williamson, one of four bishops whose excommunication was lifted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI, became well-known at that time for his remarks denying the Holocaust. He has since been told by the Vatican that he will not be welcomed into full communion in the church until he disavows and publicly apologizes for those comments.

Meanwhile, Bishop Williamson has grown increasingly estranged from the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X. Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the society, recently told Bishop Williamson to stop publishing his online newsletter.

In New York, the Anti-Defamation League called on the Vatican to publicly repudiate Bishop Williamson’s remarks.

“Bishop Williamson’s remarks are further evidence that the Society of St. Pius X has no place in the mainstream church,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director.

“It is hard for us to imagine how a congregation that does not accept fundamental church teachings against anti-Semitism, and promotes classic anti-Jewish canards, can be accepted back into the fold,” he said.

In its landmark 1965 document on non-Christian religions, “Nostra Aetate,” the Second Vatican Council affirmed that “though Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion.”

The document said that although the church is the new “people of God,” the Jews “should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed.” The text also underlined the church’s “common heritage” with the Jews.

Richard Williamson

Roman Catholic bishop Richard Williamson wrote in his weekly post that ‘the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide” ‘ and that ‘only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide’. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Richard Williamson, who has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, accused the Jews of killing Jesus, a charge that divided the two faiths for centuries until Pope Benedict XVI declared this year that Jews could not be held responsible for Jesus’s death.

In his weekly post, Williamson wrote that “the killing of Jesus was truly ‘deicide’ ” and that “only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the gospels that the gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, … would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion.”

His comments have angered Jewish leaders and Holocaust survivors, who are urging Rome to cease reconciliation talks with the ultra-traditionalist splinter group to which Williamson belongs, the Society of St Pius X. Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of the European Council of Rabbis said: “We call upon the Catholic church to suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling antisemitism within their ranks.”

Last month, Régis de Cacqueray, the head of the French SSPX chapter, also accused Jews of deicide. To the despair of Jewish groups, there has been increased dialogue between the Vatican and SSPX.

Goldschmidt said: “Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics. There must be no rapprochement within the Catholic church for those of its flock who seek to preach words of hate.”

The Vatican has said SSPX will have to sign up to core teachings if they are to reintegrate, although it has not stated what these are. Four SSPX bishops, including Williamson, were excommunicated in 1988 when they were illegally ordained.

But the Vatican lifted Williamson’s excommunication on the very day that his Holocaust-denying remarks were aired. The decision appalled Jewish leaders, with many suspending contact with the Vatican as a result. The Vatican said it did not know Williamson held such views.

Williamson has repeatedly ignored pleas to retract his remarks and not even the pope has managed to get the cleric to recant.

The fresh row will embarrass the pope, who is preparing to host a summit of world faith leaders in Assisi, Italy, next week as part of his interreligious outreach programme

.

This entry was posted in Bishops, Society of St. Pius X and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Jewish leaders denounce traditionalist’s remarks on ‘deicide’.

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    I really dislike Williamson, who exemplifies all of the worst aspects of the extreme right wing fringe of the SSPX…

    Like

  2. Mimi says:

    One can’t help suspecting that he’s deliberately trying to prevent any reconciliation of the SSPX with the Church.

    Like

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    One can’t help suspecting that if he achieves his goal, the Vatican might respond by creating an Ordinariate-like structure for any groups of SSPX who might want to accept returning to full communion with the Church according to the proposed conditions…

    Like

  4. Mimi says:

    That would be nice. I do hope you’re right, Jabba!

    Like

  5. teresa says:

    Mimi, Jabba, there is also an article saying he was planning this as a deliberate plot against the Holy Father’s plan:
    http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2011/10/trouble-at-mill.html

    Like

  6. toadspittle says:

    It seems to Toad, that Williamson’s ideas here were considered nothing more or less than the accepted, humdrum, truth during Toad’s tadpole days in the 50’s..
    It’s also heartening to see there has been a (relative?) 180% change of direction on opinion.
    The Romans did it! The Jews were innocent!

    (Surely the Pope merits a capital ‘P’ in the article?)

    Like

  7. Gertrude says:

    I am posting this – on the subject as it originates from a Priest who I hold in the highest regard:

    I was very sorry to read the article.
    We are all further hurt or tarnished or tarred by it:
    The Jewish people are hurt,
    the Church in general is tarnished,
    and traditional Catholics
    and most of the SSPX faithful
    are tarred.

    The Williamson article is political.
    It is an aggressive strategy.
    Its objective is to sow trouble
    between the SSPX and the Church, and
    between the Church and the Jewish people.
    It works well.

    Williamson can cause great trouble
    only because he is a bishop;
    even though
    he is an illegitimate bishop
    who will not submit himself to legitimate authority.

    The SSPX leadership would probably like to expel him
    but fear that he would begin his own group here in the UK
    and beyond.

    SSPX clergy do not speak out publicly against Bishop Williamson
    nor against the Menzingen Authorities
    for doing nothing that will effectively stop him.

    The situation is extraordinary.
    The SSPX cannot control their man
    who is harming the Church and their own group.

    Now is the time
    when the helpless SSPX Superior General
    who lacks jurisdiction,
    and knows he lacks the necessary jurisdiction over his equal,
    should ask the Holy Father to defrock the illegitimate bishop;
    in the kindest possible way.

    Like

  8. Mimi says:

    “Now is the time when the helpless SSPX Superior General who lacks jurisdiction,
    and knows he lacks the necessary jurisdiction over his equal, should ask the Holy Father to defrock the illegitimate bishop; in the kindest possible way”

    Can’t argue with that!

    Like

  9. Brian says:

    You know, it would be very refreshing if we stopped caring what non-Catholics (and in this particular instance, non-Christians) thought about matters internal to the Church. Just think about the merit of that proposal for a moment…

    Who are these people to claim ANY group within the Catholic Church needs to show a ‘commitment to tackling anti-Semitism in its ranks’? Did I miss something, or is ‘tackling anti-Semitism’ now a dogma of Holy Mother Church? I’m not an anti-Semite, and I do not wish
    ill-will toward any group of people. But I cringe whenever certain human frailties, such as bigotry, are accorded the same censure as mortal sin. The Second Vatican Council’s documents are
    pastoral guides, not the Magisterium, and they are not in any way, shape or form to be viewed
    as having such weight. The Council’s decrees regarding the Jews, therefore, do not in any way abrogate the necessity of converting the Jews to Christ.

    Whether we like it or not, Williamson’s statement is not entirely wrong, though it’s extremely politically incorrect to utter these days. According to our faith, the Jews – as any other non-Christian group but perhaps especially themselves, given the inherent link between the Old
    and New Testaments – must convert and accept Christ, or they will be damned. The prerogative of Christ still obtains, but that only applies to godly men who will never hear of Christ in their lifetime. This possibility, therefore, does not apply to the vast majority of Jews or any other non-Christian group living in the West or otherwise able to make use of modern media. We should all pause to appreciate the terror for the salvation of our souls for not doing more to win the Jews over to Christ.

    Now, don’t get me wrong: Williamson is a fool who cannot keep his foot out of his mouth, and his statements oftentimes make me cringe. But whereas in this instance his fault is particularly incendiary, given the unpleasant turgidity of its political incorrectness, most of its substance is not wrong. Hating or inspiring hate against an entire group of people is reprehensible, and it’s in simply poor taste to provoke such ‘scandal’, especially at this time when Holy Mother Church is assaulted from within as well as without on all sides. But I can’t find any fault with Williamson’s logic here. It’s a pity SSPX is burdened with this fool, as the Society has great things to offer
    the Church, and I’d gladly put up with their tedious posturing than assist at one more error-ridden
    modern Mass.

    But let’s not forget which side we’re on. There was – and remains – a tremendous amount of ill-will regarding the beatification of Pius XII, most of it finding fault (erroneously, if not scandalously so) with what’s perceived as the Holy Father’s inadequate efforts to suppress the Holocaust. I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying any of that. Not only did the Pope heroically use every clandestine and overt means at his disposal to save what Jews he could from their systematic murder, the Pope never made an issue of his heroic role during his pontificate. I guess placating Jewish neuroses was simply not on the Vatican’s docket back then. We’d be wise to follow suit today and consign to the circular file the complaints of non-Christians who don’t ever want to be reminded that they are in desperate need of salvation which only Christ Himself can offer.

    Like

  10. Brian says:

    I might also point out that the only true ecumenism can take place between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Any other expenditure is merely window-dressing in the Vatican’s more
    secular role as a world power, although may we rejoice if even one soul is thusly saved. Knowing the mind of Benedict XVI as it’s been revealed in his writings, interviews and utterances, I’d say it’s a good bet the Holy Father doesn’t suffer any delusion about such things as Assisi, either. He’s simply following through in the public relations role of his predecessor, Blessed John Paul II.
    There can never, ever be any kind of ecumenical success with Protestants who persist in their denial of the sacraments, the apostolic tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. What would be the point, then, of pursuing some warped kind of ecumenical outreach to people who don’t even accept Christ? Nonsense, all of it, though it’s entirely understandable from a political/charitable perspective.

    In its official manifestations – at the diocesan or, shudder, parish-level – ecumenism is merely a
    delusion in wishful-thinking and feel-good reductionism. Simply put, these efforts usually
    culminate in the publication of ambiguous ‘statements’, in which both sides acknowledge a
    lowest-common-denominator identity that further confuses the faithful on both sides into more
    ardent religious indifferentism. These ecumenical enterprises are therefore a scandal of the first magnitude.

    Now some of you might say, “But what about the Anglican Use initiative, indeed the Anglican Ordinariate? Were these not the fruit of ecumenical exercises?” The answer is a firm
    and resounding ‘no’ for several reasons: The Anglicans in both instances are what’s known as ‘High-Church’, meaning that their doctrine, piety and identity have all been ensconced within a Catholic ethos since the time of the Reformation. (In terms of beauty, dogmatic fidelity and
    liturgy, these Anglicans would put the average Novus Ordo parish to shame…). Furthermore,
    both groups of Anglicans approached the Holy See, sometimes individually and more often
    corporately, requesting a mechanism for reunion. The glorious reunion of these groups with
    Holy Mother Church had nothing whatsoever to do with ecumenical outreach as it’s commonly
    understood these days.

    This is a long way around further nuancing what I stated in the previous post re. the fruitlessness of pandering to non-Christians. We have nothing to be ashamed of – indeed, we otherwise betray our divine mandate – when we unambiguously preach Christ Crucified and the Rock of His Church. Though it be considered poor manners among today’s squeamish, we must insist on conversion to Holy Mother Church and her Truth.

    Like

  11. Mimi says:

    How delightfully politically incorrect of you, Brian — and such a breath of fresh air!

    Like

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    Here are Christ’s two Great Commandments :

    1) Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

    2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

    Now, I suppose that Williamson mentally edits out the words “O Israel” when he listens to Christ’s first Commandment ; and it’s not at all clear that he’s following the second one either…

    Christ does not command us to hate our neighbour, in any case ; but howsoever you could qualify his anti-semitism according to whichever ultra-traditionalist casuistry, it would be very hard to describe it as “love”.

    Like

  13. Brian says:

    Thank you for your kind words, Mimi. Electronic means of communication are limited in the sense that they cannot convey tones, and oftentimes the worst tone is interpreted. I’m not at all a spiteful, strident or otherwise nasty man, but I can certainly understand why some may feel I am based solely on my comments. For that, I beg mercy, but I meant ever word of the above posts..!

    Like

  14. toadspittle says:

    .
    “…But I cringe whenever certain human frailties, such as bigotry, are accorded the same censure as mortal sin.”
    Indeed, Brian. Something for all us bigots to ponder there.

    “But let’s not forget which side we’re on.”
    That of the bigoted angels, surely?

    Like

  15. Jerry says:

    According to our faith, the Jews – as any other non-Christian group but perhaps especially themselves, given the inherent link between the Old
    and New Testaments – must convert and accept Christ, or they will be damned. The prerogative of Christ still obtains, but that only applies to godly men who will never hear of Christ in their lifetime. This possibility, therefore, does not apply to the vast majority of Jews or any other non-Christian group living in the West or otherwise able to make use of modern media. We should all pause to appreciate the terror for the salvation of our souls for not doing more to win the Jews over to Christ.

    No. That isn’t an accurate statement of the Catholic position.

    Like

  16. Jerry says:

    The Pope made comments with respect to the conversion of the Jews quite recently:

    “Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time, when the number of Gentiles is full,” the pope writes. The historical duration of this “proper time,” Benedict says, cannot be calculated.
    In terms of the proper Christian attitude in the meantime, Benedict approvingly quotes Cistercian abbess and Biblical writer Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

    Like

  17. toadspittle says:

    .

    Gertrude’s priest friend, quoted on Oct 22nd., seems to be writing in blank verse.
    Nice!

    Like

  18. Jerry says:

    The most popular public intellectual among readers of CP&S, C. Hitchens, pointed out that we have here an individual who will deny genocide in the 20th century, while affirming deicide in the 1st century. — And blame the Jews for the misunderstanding in each case.

    Like

  19. toadspittle says:

    .
    No, he’s quite serious.

    Like

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    According to our faith, the Jews – as any other non-Christian group but perhaps especially themselves, given the inherent link between the Old and New Testaments – must convert and accept Christ, or they will be damned. The prerogative of Christ still obtains, but that only applies to godly men who will never hear of Christ in their lifetime. This possibility, therefore, does not apply to the vast majority of Jews or any other non-Christian group living in the West or otherwise able to make use of modern media. We should all pause to appreciate the terror for the salvation of our souls for not doing more to win the Jews over to Christ.

    No. That isn’t an accurate statement of the Catholic position.

    I agree.

    The question of who will and who won’t be saved or damned, resides in the hands of God ; not in the hands of theologians (traditionalist or otherwise).

    The Catholic position is that even though people of all kinds may be saved by God, in hope of His infinite mercy, and in His own infinite Wisdom ; that baptism, and the Christian, and Catholic, Faith are especially designated by God as being effective means towards that end (sorry for the trite expression of this, but it’s a hard one to write down in a fully orthodox manner, because it concerns the Divinity Himself).

    Furthermore, the Catholic position most certainly isn’t that God’s first Covenant with mankind was abolished by Christ (although several medieval theologians have suggested so) ; the position is that the first Covenant is qualified and defined in relationship with the second Covenant, but that living fully in accordance with the terms of His first Covenant with mankind is also a pathway to salvation, albeit being described as a qualitatively less effective one (Apocalypse even illustrates this in the Scripture ; showing some relatively small numbers saved through Judaism, compared to the vast numbers saved through Christianity). In particular though, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that God has decided to unilaterally default on the Covenant that He made with the people of Israel (the Religion, not the Nation-State).

    Like

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    here an individual who will deny genocide in the 20th century, while affirming deicide in the 1st century. — And blame the Jews for the misunderstanding in each case.

    Well — clearly so !!! 🙂

    Like

  22. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Brian, I like that you write with passion – it’s an antidote to those who are always cool, controlled, and who dismiss such passion. I guess your passion is born of frustration, and I liked Teresa’s response to you – it was a good one.

    Yet throughout your words there is a clear tendency to blame the Mexican immigrant and see him/her as a threat, when the opposite is true. That cheap (too cheap) labour has enriched your country and especially unscrupulous employers – US employers, about whom you say nothing.

    You say they have no health insurance – yes, but hardly their fault, and 50 million Americans also have no insurance; there was recently appalling opposition to the provision of health care, I’m sad to say. It’s a mark of a civilised country to offer health care.

    You say that Mexico exports its criminals to you – sorry, no, it sees its people leave a poor country as you or I would do, in order to live and help the family, to which you often refer. And it must be said that such a statement coming from the US which has exported violence round the world since (at least Vietnam), is well, astonishing. And Mexico’s current problems of drug crime, gangs and weapons everywhere can be laid at the door of the US. Your country caused this, for you supply the guns and buy the drugs( worth remembering?).

    Your world seems to have shrunk to perceived threats against your family – can you tell us what has been done against you caused by immigrants?

    Rather than blaming the immigrant for your country’s economic problems you might care to look elsewhere,(Occupy Wall St might be a clue) though I realise that a supine media doesn’t encourage any form of questioning. Rather, you are told to blame and hate the stranger. In Europe too, there is the wish to blame the immigrant for everything, in a similar manner to you. You are not alone in getting it wrong.
    It is a tragedy.

    I ask you to substitute the words ‘Black’ or ‘Catholic’ for immigrant and see how it sounds.
    You are right that text doesn’t convey tone as the writer intends.
    Keep up the passion, as long as it’s informed!

    Like

  23. Brian says:

    Wall Eyed Mr Whippy: I really don’t know where to start in responding to your comments above. I guess your condescending appreciation for my ‘passion’ is as good a place as any…

    But on to the facts: You sound like a typical latter-day Western European – indeed, I’m sorry to say, of the UK variety – who simply relishes the opportunity to take cheap shots at the United States. If you read my remarks carefully, Mr Whippy, you’d see that I ask why it should be considered morally upright to exploit these people. In other words, the unscrupulous U.S. employers are indeed big-time villains in this equation. But my subtlety seems to have eluded you… They have not “enriched” my country; if anything, they have been exploited by said unscrupulous U.S. employers to artificially drive down consumer prices, while simultaneously bankrupting all of our social services, services that should exist for the good of the whole community, not merely the irresponsible.

    I cannot speak on behalf of your government, but the American ideal – an ideal that has been chipped away with dedication lo these several past decades – is all about self-reliance. It is anathema to Americans who understand the founding principles of our country that the government should provide us with ANYTHING – save international treaties and a robust national defense. The government, in American parlance, has no business getting involved in insurance, retirement schemes, education, etc. All of these things are now on the table, but it’s an utter repudiation of our tradition. Governments are corrupt and ill-equipped to do anything efficiently. The individual should make these decisions – and make all requisite provisions – himself. It’s a mark of a socialist/communist country to offer health care… But I guess you’re too blinded by your own tradition of a nanny state that takes care of you from womb to tomb to understand this salient fact.

    For the second time, Mexico is NOT a poor country. Most authoritative estimates – to include popular ones such as is found in The Economist magazine – routinely list Mexico as either the 9th or 10th richest country IN THE WORLD (attributed mostly to profits derived from petroleum products). I don’t expect you to have anything approaching familiarity with Mexican politics or policies, but it is a verifiable truism that, since the inception of the modern Mexican state in the early part of the 20th century, the ‘unofficial’ policy of the Mexican government has been to export its poor and criminal class north of the border. Mexico, like many South American countries, is an extremely stratified society with the European Spanish or ‘whites’ at the top of the food chain, and the Amerindians at the very bottom. It’s no surprise that many of the illegal aliens in the United States don’t SPEAK Spanish, much less read it, as it’s not their mother tongue. These are issues about which, once again, I couldn’t expect you to have any fluency and still consider myself ‘charitable’…

    And you say the U.S. has “exported violence around the world”, and you find the nascent locus for said export in Viet Nam??? My, how quaint… I didn’t think there were too many people left who relied on this old canard, but I guess I was wrong. Seems to me that the Viet Nam enterprise, while horrendously bloody, costly and ultimately a failure once the North betrayed the peace treaty and invaded the South, was undertaken to stop the juggernaut of communism from obliterating East Asia, a very noble goal if you ask me. Or better yet, ask those who perished by the MILLIONS among the boat people, those who fled Pol Pot or the countless millions more who were slaughtered by Mao and Stalin… Yes, dear Mr Whippy, we Americans are a violent lot, particularly in support of good causes in which we pay the ultimate price (in blood) or the near-ultimate price (in prestige, by being condescendingly criticized by the likes of you). My goodness, had we not “exported violence”, I guess we couldn’t have helped save the UK from a fate of speaking German or becoming the northwestern-most outpost of the Soviet Union. Despite your erroneous beliefs, I do not gloat about such things. I’m merely very happy that serious, adult men were at the helm in the UK and the U.S. during these critical times. And look at the dividends it’s paid – we’re now allowed to speak drivel and lambast our defenders!!!

    You’re somewhat right when it comes to the drug trade, Mr Whippy, but you overstate your position. We do not do enough in terms of combatting drugs – our penalties are laughably lenient. We are a nation of 300+ millions, so we’re a very tempting market for ANY kind of commerce. But we could provide no customers if there were no eager supplier directly to our south. You should be aware of the local market forces for drugs in the UK, and become conversant in where these drugs originate. It’s a national security scandal that our countries don’t take more drastic action against the source. This is “worth remembering”, Mr Whippy, believe me…

    And yes, guns, guns, and more guns: perhaps the biggest leftist bugaboo. Gun ownership – it’s yet another protected American right, enshrined by the Second Amendment of our Constitution. Hell, I don’t have to waste my time debating the merits of owning guns with someone across the pond; there are plenty of liberal goofballs right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. who likewise can’t understand its wisdom. Criminals are going to get guns, regardless of whatever draconian restrictions you think magically disallow them from procuring firearms. There is as much chance of stemming the tide of gun crime as there is in my directing the sun not to rise in the morning, which is to say, none at all. “You supply the guns”… Yes, but on OUR side of the border, Whippy…

    But I guess I have to save my greatest scorn for your complete misunderstanding of the American media. Do you really, REALLY think that the American media is telling me “to blame and hate the stranger”??? Are you truly that brainwashed??? The American media in aggregate has been hostile to any ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ viewpoint, from law to morality, for over FIFTY YEARS!!! If it were up to the cultural Marxists who inhabit almost all of the media venues of opinion, the CEOs, bankers and other ‘capitalist stooges’ would be swinging from the streetlights. As witnessed above, I personally have a lot of contempt for the unscrupulous captains of industry and commerce, but I have even greater contempt for the strident, smelly Occupy Wall Street trust-fund babies who haven’t worked a day in their lives. I guess the most moral thing would be to allow both sides to kill each other off, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon… And these same media cheerleaders are the most strident open-borders cheerleaders and apologists for an immigration policy that is out of all proportion to sanity and morality. But you, Mr Whippy, are not alone in getting it wrong. It IS a tragedy…

    Finally, thank you for the suggestion to transpose ‘Black’ (another favorite victim group) or ‘Catholic’ with ‘immigrant’ to see how it sounds… Yep, just tried it, and it doesn’t move me.
    The world, dear Mr Whippy, is not the Kingdom of God and is a very, very imperfect place. Pardon me for making at least a weak attempt to support public order, national traditions and good old fashioned common sense.

    Thanks for being such a good sport.

    Like

  24. kathleen says:

    A brilliant response to Mr Whippy’s liberal rant Brian!

    (Two things I disagree with though: Mr Whippy is right that offering health care to one and all is civilised and good IMO. And I can’t agree with your gun ownership policy argument either…… bit of a vicious circle that, isn’t it? ;-).)

    Like

  25. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Well done that man and his secondhand sidekick Kathleen, who employs the vocabulary of the US right wing extremists. A bit of a rant from you, so Kathleen will be on your back in an instant if she’s honest – I’m sure she is according to her thinking. But I hope you feel better now.

    Like you (lets cuddle up xx) I don’t know where to begin in pointing out to you where you get it wrong. Much of it I’ll let pass, for I’m not reading reason from you but emotion, to put it diplomatically. American Specialism is an unattractive trait – read up on it. Try Noam Chomsky first – this will surely give you another target for your ‘sound and fury’ etc!

    The British did the ‘Specialism’ thing some time ago, called Empire, and it was laughable even then. As for the old canard about saving the UK from speaking German, that was expected. It’s mere Sarah Palin Tea Party sloganising. I have to remind you that we spent years trying to get you to support freedom; then we had to pay you for every bomb, bullet and breakfast you used. We only finished the payment about 5 years ago. Shame on you as usurers. And if it were not for the UK and its then Commonwealth, plus the Soviets, plus your equally brave soldiers, we would all have sunk, and you would have kissed and made up with the Nazis. Don’t forget that in Normandy, you had two beaches out of five. It may be hard for you to accept that you were not the only ones there. Hollywood writes your history; worse, you swallow it. Don’t kid yourself that any of the Allies could have succeeded alone.

    The US has indeed unarguably exported violence round the world since the horror of Vietnam with its fake Gulf of Tonkin pretext to start the war, the fake WMD against Iraq, ad nauseam, and your hatred for the Wall St protesters is rather like the old hatred for hippies, Civil Rights activists and war protesters so long ago. Likewise your venom towards the immigrant who you profit from and who did no harm to your family. Shades of ‘Krystallnacht’ to come! “Bring me your huddled masses…” and you’ll give them Sturm und Drang.

    Now your ex President has sunk to boasting about torturing prisoners. I see parallels with a tragic godless European country of the 1930s.

    Perhaps you could save your comments for the Mass, where you disrupted everyone by your outburst against immigrants. You, from a country built on immigration -wrong place, wrong time. Sadly, your latest post reveals yet another layer of those you hate; ie UK and Europeans. Lefties of course, so that’s OK. Send them to Guantanamo!! A bit of waterboarding is what they need. And it’s legal.

    I’m sportingly ok with your wacky comments above, but do spare the priest saying Mass from your protesting outburst please. You could have pinned your complaints to the church door instead?

    Like

  26. kathleen says:

    Wow Mr. Whippy, am I a ‘secondhand sidekick’ now? 😆
    ‘Spose I was asking for it though, and I apologise for using the word ‘rant‘. Expounding one’s opinions is not a rant – or else everyone ‘rants‘ when they give their ideas and views – so sorry about that.
    No apologies for using the word ‘liberal’ though. You are a liberal. I am not. Bashing the USA for all the worlds’ woes is something I totally oppose. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one………
    And insulting people is not nice either.

    Like

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    Brian is of course entitled to whichever political views he prefers ; but it is just as offensive to dress up right wing conservatism as if it were “Catholic” as it is to claim that left wing socialist radicalism might be “Catholic” in the opposite manner.

    On a more personal level, one eventually gets somewhat accustomed to being denounced as a relativist marxist by some ; whilst simultaneously being called a right wing traddy by supporters of the alternative extremism.

    [shrug]

    Like

  28. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Thank you Kathleen

    Much of what you say I agree with. But when you lose no opportunity to provoke, you must accept a little tickle now and then.

    ‘Liberal’ has different meanings on opposite sides of the ocean. Liberal, me? You bet.

    You see, Kath, whatever Brian and I say is of little or no account for we will not persuade each other. I however will not be silent in face of the ominous, dangerous violence I describe. Appeasement was tried before WWII yet some people spoke out, to the anger of others. There are similarities today; I am sorry if what I say irritates you, yet I fear that the US will plunge the planet into hell and chaos, quite soon. I do hope I’m wrong, but give it a year or so before I willingly admit I’m wrong. The sabre rattling signs are all there – now.

    But more closely to the point of CPS, what is not good (to say the very least) is when possibly there are Catholic immigrants attending Mass, and they hear an ugly commotion behind where someone is clearly angry about their presence, and who storms out of a Mass. A Mass is not a political forum; surely you will agree with me for once. I think this uproar would intimidate them – in their own Catholic church. You and I know what the word Catholic means. If you wish, think on this a little and imagine the appalling vista it opens. Put yourself in their shoes; if you can, remembering that Brian’s family at some point, were immigrants. I think that you are from Ireland (as was my mother), a nation of emigrants.

    Like

  29. kathleen says:

    Yes Mr. Whippy, I am half Irish too, and it is true, Ireland’s troubles have sadly led to much heartache and forced emigration. But nowadays one can say that this emigration was a blessing in disguise: the Catholic Faith has been spread to many corners of the Earth thanks to Irish emigation!

    Brian’s storming out of the church because of the priest’s words is not something I would want to judge or comment on though. He says he did not cause a ‘commotion’ when he did so anyway.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s