Skip to main content

Archbishop Dolan, speaking from the pulpit of Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Palm Sunday, said the pope is "suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob and scourging at the pillar as did Jesus." Dolan continued that the Pope is a "man now being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo."

These comments are frighteningly anti-semitic.

(Diarist's note added after 126 comments: the invocation of "the mob" is an unmistakeable reference to the supposed Jewish mob who, in the Christian anti-semitic gospels, calls for the killing of Jesus. Thus, Dolan is not just equating the Pope with Jesus, he is equating those who exposed the cover-up of the Catholic abuse scandals with the supposedly deicidal Jewish mob -- the same metaphors used to whip-up anti-Jewish pogroms for centuries.)

Dolan didn't explicitly refer to the New York Times by name in that sermon, instead referring to "certain sources," but his complaints about putative anti-catholicism in the New York Times are well known (and he repeated the claim in his March 30 blog post). His audience knows which paper broke the stories, so they could not mistake his claim of who was responsible for metaphorically crucifying the Pope. According to the (London) Times, Dolan complained that, "Truth and falsehood are scandalously mingled in the New York Times reconstructions" of the Catholic hierarchy's cover-up.

What Archbishop Dolan is doing is trying to distract from the abuse scandal and its cover-up by engaging in the millenia-old Catholic tradition of blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. That's why he is accusing the implicitly Jewish New York Times of metaphorically crucifying the current pope. Basically, he's saying, "the Jews are at it again."

I think Dolan's accusation of deicide is at least as egregious as Father Raniero Cantalamessa's now infamous sermon (which the Vatican has attempted to roll back), comparing the exposure of the Catholic hierarchy's cover-up of abuse to anti-semitism.

James Carroll, (the Boston Globe columnist and author of the amazing book, "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews," which I'm in the middle of reading), wrote a prophetic column over a week ago warning of the danger of precisely this kind of official Catholic anti-semitism:

Carroll wrote:

"Now begins the most sacred week of the Christian year — and the most dangerous. In Holy Week down through the centuries, mobs have poured out of churches in search of Jews to harass and kill. (In 1096, beginning on Good Friday, Christians killed something like 10,000 Rhineland Jews in a few short weeks — Europe’s first pogrom). And why? The Passion narratives that Christians hear proclaimed from pulpits between now and Friday explicitly blame the murder of Jesus on 'the Jews.'"

I would hope that Archbishop Dolan knows well the murderous consequences of Catholic charges of deicide, yet he chose to invoke precisely that metaphor. Why?

Carroll ended his column explicitly calling on Christians to repudiate the anti-semitism of the Gospels, something that, as an atheist Jew, before I started reading Carroll's book, I never allowed myself to hope I would hear from a Christian.

"This week, Christian preachers must preach against these texts. Christians must hear these texts as if they are themselves Jewish, having foremost in mind that Jesus never stopped being a faithful Jew. If Christians had remembered that, and measured both their doctrines and their behavior against their Lord’s undying love of his own people, the history of the last 2,000 years would be very different."

Originally posted to samdiener on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:15 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh boy (5+ / 0-)

    This result in some interesting comments.

    Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

    by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:25:51 PM PDT

  •  Vatican also blaming (20+ / 0-)

    "those who oppose its stance on gay marriage", i.e. gays, for attacks. So, we have Jews and gays so far. I wonder who else will find themselves accused in its medieval conspiracy fantasy?

    "I had seen the universe as it begins for all things. It was, in reality, a child's universe, a tiny and laughing universe." Loren Eiseley

    by cadejo4 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:26:12 PM PDT

  •  ...implicitly Jewish New York Times? (6+ / 0-)

    His comments were outlandish, but I think you have a long way to go to prove that...

    Basically, he's saying, "the Jews are at it again."

    This sounds more like your construction than his intention.

    "Tea Bagger politics is a politics of simplistic and hostile assertion"...Dr. Robert Letcher

    by Giles Goat Boy on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:28:53 PM PDT

  •  innuendo (4+ / 0-)

    that's what a suppository is called in Italian

    They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

    by yet another liberal on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:30:21 PM PDT

  •  this pissed off gay man (12+ / 0-)

    was hoping that

    metaphorically crucifying the current pope

    it wasn't so metaphorical and that you had pictures. (that's snark, but just barely)

    I've had about enough of being blamed for a systemic child molestation problem in a church that I do not belong to and have despised for decades precisely because it has seen fit to demonize me and my fellow glbt's.

    Blame teh jews, blame teh gays, blame teh feminists, blame "gossips", blame modern society, blame capitalism, blame socialism, blame everyone and everything except those people and that system which are responsible.  Seems Joe the Rat is a Republican - who knew?

    Nudist Minorcan ancestors good with slingshots, invented mayo - family dynamic now clear

    by hpchicago on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

  •  It's Not Just the Times (5+ / 0-)

    ...I'm sure that the Holy See is just as unhappy with my buddhist, atheist, socialist, queer-friendly, sex-positive, anti-fascist, trade unionist, intellectual, anti-pedophiliac ass as they are with anyone at the Times.

    And more to the point, as was the case in Germany when Joey Ratz joined the Hitler Youth, he'd be happy to send those like me to the very same camps. The line from "one god" to "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer," is as clear as the light of day to anyone who is paying attention.

    It is not enough for Christians to preach against particular understandings of particular gospels. It is time for all sane humans to preach against the monotheistic desert heresies known as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which are poisoned at the root, poisoned in the branch, and poisoned in the fruit, as the history of each of these traditions makes transparently clear.

    •  There's a difference between the history (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marja E

      of those great religions, and their underlying principles, philosophies and theologies.  

      Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

      by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:47:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, (0+ / 0-)

        their underlying principles, philosophies and theologies

        seem to be the source of the three desert religions vast buffoonery.

      •  Says you. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsenski

        The number of ideas within the "underlying principles, philosophies and theologies" that are disgusting, inhumane, violent, and severely dangerous is legion. If one merely doesn't approach the subject with a preconceived bias in favor of carefully picking and choosing religious "principles, philosophies and theologies" on the sole grounds that they're congenial, your assertion is severely dubious.

        We billions of human beings have to live with the actual religions that the world actually contains. Fictional, Pollyanna conceptions of religion that cherry-pick (and skew) religious notions, on-the-ground reality be damned, in order to paint a cheery picture amount to little more than whistling past the graveyard. It is far, far from self-evident that the "underlying principles, philosophies and theologies" of the world's major religions are any less ugly than the history thereof.


        But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

        - Jesus, in Luke 19:27


        [T]here are several problems with such a defense of moderate religion. First, many moderates assume that religious "extremism" is rare and therefore not all that consequential. Happily, you [Andrew Sullivan] are not in this camp, but I would venture that you are in a minority among religious moderates. As you and I both know, religious extremism is not rare, and it is hugely consequential. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. This idea is extreme in almost every sense--extremely silly, extremely dangerous, extremely worthy of denigration--but it is not extreme in the sense of being rare. [...]

        Second, many religious moderates imagine, as you do, that there is some clear line of separation between extremist and moderate religion. But there isn't. Scripture itself remains a perpetual engine of extremism: because, while He may be many things, the God of the Bible and the Qur'an is not a moderate. Read scripture more closely and you do not find reasons for religious moderation; you find reasons to live like a proper religious maniac--to fear the fires of hell, to despise nonbelievers, to persecute homosexuals, etc. Of course, one can cherry-pick scripture and find reasons to love one's neighbor and turn the other cheek, but the truth is, the pickings are pretty slim, and the more fully one grants credence to these books, the more fully one will be committed to the view that infidels, heretics, and apostates are destined to be ground up in God's loving machinery of justice.

        - Sam Harris, Debate with Andrew Sullivan

  •  All I'm going to say... (6+ / 0-)

    ...is that people from Rome ought not ever to be pontificating about crucifying Jews.

    Thwarting Republicans since 1978.

    by wiscmass on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:40:22 PM PDT

  •  A preposterous diary. (6+ / 0-)

    I don't in any way defend the Catholic Church, Dolan's comments, or anti-semitism.

    But let's be clear:  you have established NO LINK between Dolan's statement and anti-semitism other than your own imagined connect-the-dots based on history which has nothing to do with the NYT or the current situation.  This is a glaring example of seeing anti-semitism (like Communism) lurking behind every bush.

    Dolan claims the NYT is anti-Catholic.  Well, let him.  He at no time mentions Jews, nor does he draw on any of the other veiled references that might point at them.

    Please stop doing this.  It's argumentatively fallacious.  You have no basis for making the claim you have made here, other than a connection you have invented in your mind.

  •  "Groundless innuendo": A new edition to this (4+ / 0-)

    Vatican's Newspeak.

    Fucking disgusting.

    The overwhelming consensus of 2,000+ scientific experts from the IPCC& 18 US scientific assns: climate change is happening and is a growing threat to our wo

    by Cenobyte on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:51:30 PM PDT

    •  I agree it's disgusting. (3+ / 0-)

      Because the accusations are well-documented, and certainly not innuendo.

      It's just not anti-semitic.  And claiming that it is because of past history is paranoid and fallacious.

      In fact, the central thesis of the diarist is based on...groundless interpretation of supposed innuendo.

      •  Look, who is he directing it at with this? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cenobyte, Richard Lyon

        Archbishop Dolan, speaking from the pulpit of Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Palm Sunday, said the pope is "suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob and scourging at the pillar as did Jesus." Dolan continued that the Pope is a "man now being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo."

        Can you explain the imagery behind the comments?

        •  hmm. That's a good question. Draco? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eternal Hope

          Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

          by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:04:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He's directing it at all critics. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfbob, Involuntary Exile

          He's playing the victim card, using the central story of his adherents' mythology.  It has nothing to do with Jews.  It has to do with "oh, look, the poor Pope, the lamb of god is being victimized by these terrible godless people".  In which category falls EVERYONE who dares to point the finger at him.  They're not excluding Jews from that group, but they're not singling them out, either.  The diarist's response is paranoid.

          That is the least convoluted and most reasonable explanation for the comments, and the one that makes the most strategic sense, given the pickle they're in.  

          •  Look: (0+ / 0-)

            If you're a member of a group who has been persecuted for millenia, you would not consider it paranoid. And surely, you would not accuse a Black man of being paranoid for going ballistic over someone joking about burning crosses.

          •  Ok, but the reference to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eternal Hope, Corwin Weber

            "the shouts of the mob" and the "scourging at the pillar" could be viewed as a scriptural reference that has an anti-semitic import.

            (Just sayin'.  I'm not convinced, myself).

            Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

            by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:10:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't buy it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Involuntary Exile

              You can only get there if you start with the ASSUMPTION that it's about Jews and not just critics in general.

              •  Yeah, I'm not convinced either, but (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dracowyrm

                I'm not as sure as you are.  As I said in an earlier comment, There was a sermon by another bishop that definitely DID have the ring of anti-semitism.  Here.

                Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

                by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:23:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I never said there wasn't anti-semitism among... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Involuntary Exile

                  some Catholics, including heirarchs.  I'm not making that argument.  I'm simply saying that this does not make it reasonable to make the claim made by the diarist.

                  •  Very well: (0+ / 0-)

                    Are you familiar with the various religious pogroms that the Church leadership used against the Jews during the Middle Ages?

                    •  Yes, but irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

                      We're talking about Dolan's speech.  We're not talking about the Middle Ages.  Claiming that there is an unbroken chain--a conspiracy--that leads from one to the other is a continuation of paranoid thinking.  

                      No one in this comment thread, including the diarist, has actually been able to put together a decent argument to support his thesis.  Changing the subject doesn't change that.

                      •  It has everything to do with it. (0+ / 0-)

                        It's not a matter of alleging some kind of conspiracy. It's a matter of pointing out how a reasonable person can interpret these remarks as anti-semitic. Since you are familiar with these pogroms, can you see how a reasonable person, who has been the target of antisemitism, can interpret Dolan's remarks as anti-semitic?

                    •  What has that got to do with the diarist's (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dracowyrm

                      claim?  Are we to assume that any criticism of its critics made by the Catholic hierarchy is aimed at Jews and anti-semitic in nature because of their treatment of Jews in the Middle Ages?  I think that's a real stretch.

                      "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

                      by Involuntary Exile on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:08:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Gatordiet

                        But wouldn't a reasonable person see a similarity between the imagery used by Dolan where he equated Benedict to Christ and the kind of inflammatory rhetoric used in the Middle Ages to justify the treatment of the Jews?

                        •  No. I am a reasonable person and a non-Christian, (0+ / 0-)

                          and I do not see any similarity between Dolan's language and persecution of Jews by the Catholic church in the Middle Ages.  What I see is a metaphor for the much larger group of anti-Catholics of all stripes.  I think it is all too easy to read anti-semitism into crucifixion references if that is what you want to see.  Crucifixion metaphors are about the suffering of Jesus for the sake of others, not about who made him suffer.  The metaphor is based upon the belief that Jesus sacrificed himself, suffered crucifixion and death that he could have avoided, to save all mankind from eternal death.  It's not about who put him to death.  That part is immaterial to modern Christians since he could have chosen not to die.

                          "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

                          by Involuntary Exile on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:00:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And Dolan has it all backwards. (0+ / 0-)

                            For him, it is about the people who make Benedict suffer, which he then proceeds to equate with Jesus. No remorse whatsoever for all the suffering that millions of children have undergone at the hands of pedophile priests who people like him actively protected. So while I accept that this is a broad-based attack, I can see how this diarist and others can see how Dolan might be showing a gross lack of sensitivity to the Jews. One of the main lines of attack that the Church used during the Middle Ages was that the Jews (as opposed to the rulers) made Jesus suffer; therefore, the ends justify the means.

                          •  I must correct one inaccuracy in your comment (0+ / 0-)

                            To quote from Dolan's Palm Sunday message:

                            "Anytime this horror, this vicious sin, this nauseating crime is reported, as it needs to be, victims and their families are wounded again, the vast majority of faithful priests bow their heads in shame anew and sincere Catholics like you experience another dose of shock, sorrow and even anger," Dolan said.

                             

                            From the AP account:

                            Dolan credited the pope for making possible the progress the Catholic Church has made in the United States against "this sickening sin and crime," saying changes "could never have happened without the insistence and support of the very man now being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo."

                            He asked whether the church and the pope "need intense scrutiny and just criticism for tragic horrors long past?"

                            "Yes! Yes!" he said, answering his question. "He himself has asked for it, encouraging complete honesty, at the same time eloquently expressing contrition and urging a thorough cleansing.

                            "All we ask is that it be fair and that the Catholic Church not be singled out for a horror that has cursed every culture, religion, organization, institution, school, agency and family in the world," he said.

                            It is my personal belief that people who choose victimhood see prejudice where they choose to see it.  Some people are vociferously anti-Christian.  If they are also prone to see themselves as victims they will find "evidence" to reinforce their anti-Christian views even if said "evidence" is constructed of the thinnest possible gruel.

                            "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

                            by Involuntary Exile on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 06:44:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Why invoke the shouts of the Mob (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eternal Hope, Corwin Weber

                which the Archbishop's bible claims is a murderous Jewish mob, If not to make an anti-semitic attack?

  •  what? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Involuntary Exile, m00finsan

    good fucking god.

    Love is the force for saving all animal life- humans included.

    by GlowNZ on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 02:55:33 PM PDT

  •  Dolan just left from Milwaukee last year. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cadejo4

    He was an a-hole here, too.  This Pope is appointing some real stick-hangers and mouth-breathers to bishop, and it's already coming back to bite him.

    Stick-hanger - guys (no girls allowed) who use a wooden pole as a prop at the altar, leaning as in deep reverence while they put on a show.

    When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

    by wozzle on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:03:36 PM PDT

  •  The church heirarchy has behaved shamefully (4+ / 0-)

    regarding the abuse scandals. For decades, its priority has been to protect the institution at the expense of its victims. Many of the recent pronouncements are just an extension of this phenomenon.

    But, as carefully as I have read this post, and your link to the archbishop's words, I don't think that I see how you have supported your accusations of antisemitism. "Certain sources" =the NYT=Jews is kinda tenuous. And, while for centuries Jews were absurdly blamed for the crucifixion, to assume antisemitism when a Catholic bishop uses it as a metaphor (no matter how exaggerated and inapt) on Palm Sunday is just unfair.

    There is very real antisemitism, racism, and other ugly forms of bias and discrimination out there. Tossing around accusations without clear justification just inures people to it.

    •  I can explain to some extent. (0+ / 0-)

      From the diary:

      Archbishop Dolan, speaking from the pulpit of Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Palm Sunday, said the pope is "suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob and scourging at the pillar as did Jesus." Dolan continued that the Pope is a "man now being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo."

      This is the same sort of language that anti-semites used throughout history to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. So even if it wasn't anti-semitism, I would argue that at the very least, it showed a gross lack of sensitivity to the Jews' fears and concerns with regard to persecution.

      •  What, so now we all have to be historians... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Involuntary Exile

        in order to decode his "secret message"?

        Look, this was a public address.  It was meant for the PAPERS, not for those with a super-secret decoder ring.  Reading these kinds of meanings is a classically paranoid, conspiracy-theory way of looking at a very simple event:  a political leader, under siege, seeks to undermine the credibility of his critics.  That's all that's going on here.  

        It doesn't even make logical sense for Dolan's message to be anti-semitic.  The accusers are Catholics.  What he's trying to do is tarbrush "THE PRESS", because they're getting killed in the press.

        •  Maybe it's not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gatordiet

          But it's just a fact of life that certain people whose ancestors have been persecuted with very similar imagery to the crap that Dolan is using will see it otherwise. I know that's not fair, but that's a fact of life. That's what happens when you try to protect pedophile priests instead of children.

        •  Well, you don't have to be a historian (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Corwin Weber, Gatordiet

          to know that blaming the crucifixion on Jews has been a canard that has been used to catalyze some of the most horrible anti-Jewish violence.  

          I know this from my own experience, sort of.

          Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

          by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:29:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again: there is no indication (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Involuntary Exile

            in Dolan's comments that there is any specially targeted message relating to Jews.  The idea that talking about the crucifixion somehow makes this about Jews is kind of silly on its face:  they're Christians, fer chrissakes, what Grand Story of Noble Victimhood do you THINK they're going to reference when they're trying to say to the world, "oh, poor us"?

            Whereas what we have here is a diarist invoking his own culture's victimhood meme, inappropriately and with scant basis.

            Neither holds much water, in my opinion.

      •  I know that Jews have been blamed (0+ / 0-)

        for the crucifixion. It might be that some people associate the story primarily with antisemitism. The Catholic church brought that problem onto itself through centuries of bigotry. But you can't ask a christian priest to not use it as a metaphor in a christian church on a christian holiday that is directly related to the events in the story itself.

        Dolan may be a horrible antisemite. I just don't see the evidence for it here. Its not fair or productive to throw that sort of accusation around without solid evidence.

  •  Well crap between AIPAC (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Corwin Weber, Bronx59, Gatordiet

    Israel and us in general we seem to be responsible for everything else wrong in the world including my leaky roof. And I am Jewish - can't I at least catch a break.....

    </snark>

    You keep saying that it's not possible right now. Ya think, Captain Obvious? unspeakable to me in a Fry'd Daze diary

    by volleyboy1 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:23:13 PM PDT

  •  Shouts of the Mob (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope, Corwin Weber

    Dolan said, "shouts of the mob." Who is the mob, according to the anti-semitic gospel texts, but the Jews, who were supposedly calling for the crucifixion of Jesus. So, Dolan was explicitly quoting anti-semitic texts in order to try to compare the Pope to Jesus. This isn't a conspiracy theory or the use of a secret decoder ring. It's from reading and understanding the gospels and the history to which they've been put to attack Jews for millenia. Dolan is piling on.

    •  And it wasn't even the Jews who killed Jesus. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jersey Jon, innereye, Gatordiet

      It was the religious authorities who did not like to hear what he had to say. Big difference.

    •  It's a touchy subject, for sure. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gatordiet

      Hill? What hill? No one said there was going to be a hill . . . . Was there a sign?

      by Jersey Jon on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 03:36:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Garbage. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bronx59, Involuntary Exile

      Let's recap, shall we?

      1.  The Catholic Church has no MOTIVE to call out Jews in relation to the current scandals.
      1.  The Catholic Church has EVERY motive to discredit the press, which is nuking its funding base.
      1.  The central myth of noble sacrifice of Christianity is the crucifixion.
      1.  Dolan invoked this story to drum up sympathy for the poor ol' pedophile-shielding Pope--using the "shouts of the mob" as a natural metaphor for the bloody headlines in the papers--but never mentioned either the NYT or Jews, even obliquely.
      1.  Yet you believe that all of this is a secretive, subtle dig at Jews, because...um, why was that again?

      I repeat:  paranoid, propagandistic, illogical.

      •  Very well: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Corwin Weber

        but never mentioned either the NYT or Jews, even obliquely.

        Are you familiar with the concept of dog whistle politics?

        •  Are you familiar with the concept of paranoia? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bronx59

          Yes, I know about dog whistle politics.  And I know that the danger in throwing that term around is that PEOPLE CAN'T HEAR DOG WHISTLES, and so sometimes when they may think they hear one being blown, IT IS ONLY IN THEIR MINDS.

          There is no reasonable basis for the diarist's claim that Dolan's speech was in any way targeted at Jews.  There's no rational explanation for why Dolan would WANT to target Jews.  His target was the media.  That's what he talked about, and that's what he really was talking about.

          At least, that's what all the available evidence points to.

          •  So: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gatordiet

            If people can't hear dog whistles, then why did Rove and Reagan use dog whistles for all these years? Would you claim that when Reagan kicked off his campaign in Mississippi calling for a return to states' rights that any racism that Blacks saw was only in their minds?

            •  Eluding my point. (0+ / 0-)

              My point is that in a case like this, where it is such a tremendous stretch to imagine that a dog whistle is being blown that it is unlikely that the "dogs" would even recognize it, it makes more sense to go with the more likely explanation, which is that there is no anti-semitism in Dolan's speech.

              It's one thing to go to MS and give a speech to a bunch of right-wing good ol' boys invoking "state's rights".  There's no mystery about what that means, and the primary reason for that is the motive of the speaker:  Reagan wanted white racists to know he was with them.

              In this case, there is no reasonable explanation for why Dolan would be calling out Jews.  

      •  Yeah, besides....Teh Jews would have stoned Jesus (0+ / 0-)

        (snark)

        Mark Sanford vacations in Argentina but John Ensign prefers the Hamptons.

        by mojave mike on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:15:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As if anti-Semitism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftymama, Gatordiet

        ever had a rational motive?

        I'm not saying I agree with the diarist on this, but there have always been extreme anti-Semites in the Catholic Church.

        It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. --H.L. Mencken

        by denise b on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:25:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  According to Dolan, Jewish Mob=New York Times (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Corwin Weber

      Dolan was equating the exposé of the cover-up of the abuse scandals in "certain sources" with the Jewish mob which supposedly called for Jesus' murder.

      Everyone knew the "certain sources" he was referring to was the New York Times, and he confirmed this with his subsequent comments quoted in The Times of London and his blog post reiterating his criticism of the NYT.

      That's why it's anti-semitic, whether you believe he was referring to the Jewishness of the New York Times' ownership or not.

    •  Anti-semitic gospel texts? Oh, please! (0+ / 0-)

      Like Christians don't know that Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, and the gospels were written by Jews?  Jesus preached to the Jews.  His sermons were directed toward them, not gentiles.  He did not go among the gentiles.  Paul, not the writers of the gospels, preached to the gentiles and changed the message, as evidenced in his epistles, to make it fit his audience.   I think one should read the gospels before making claims about them.

      "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

      by Involuntary Exile on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:34:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True. (0+ / 0-)

        But they have been misused for that purpose.

      •  Many Christians Don't & Gospel Anti-Semitism (0+ / 0-)

        First, some Christians don't know any of those things. In fact, when I was teaching world history in a high school, I mentioned that Jesus was Jewish. One student freaked out and told me I was a liar. She went to her pastor and asked him. Her pastor confirmed what I had said. She said, "I'm not going to church anymore. I'm not going to worship a Jew!"

        Second, however, the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death partially in order to attack and distinguish between Christian Jews and the incipient rabbinical Jews (following the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple by Rome). The Christian Jews were trying to convert Gentiles (Roman non-Jews) and trying to survive in a Roman-dominated world. So, the gospels blame "jews" for killing Jesus and downplay Rome's role. In addition to being my reading of the texts, this is one of James Carroll's central theses in Constantine's Sword. If it's difficult hearing this from me, take it from Carroll, who is Catholic and an ex-priest.

    •  You're an imbecile: (0+ / 0-)

      "Dolan was explicitly quoting anti-Semitic texts"??? He was referring to imagery from the Gospels, which are among the holy books of Christianity. (By the way, they were written by Jews.) Asking Christians to repudiate the Gospels is like asking Jews to repudiate the Torah or Muslims to repudiate the Koran.

      You clearly are just too ignorant even to participate in the discussion you yourself initiated--without immediately displaying your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

      So what's it going to be next? Would you like to discuss Islam and avail us of your ignorance on that subject? Or would you prefer a more secular topic? Since you launched into this subject without knowing anything, I'm sure there's an abundance of subjects you know little or nothing about but could comment on extensively.

      •  Critical Examination Can Be Painful (0+ / 0-)

        I understand that it can be painful for the adherents of any faith or cause to look critically at the oppressive components of our own heritage and our favorite texts. And I think it's essential that we do so. The fact that James Carroll is willing and able to examine his own heritage so critically is exactly what I admire most about his work.

        So, yes, there are horrific passages in the Torah that are ethical nightmares (promoting rape, genocide, and slavery, among other things), that I would hope and expect any critically conscious progressive Jewish, Christian, or other person to condemn. For example, in 2 Kings, the prophet Elisha is insulted by a group of youths who call him something along the lines of "baldy." Elisha curses them and the deity sends two bears as punishment to kill 42 of the young people. I would hope that, as we oppose bullying, progressive Jews would also reject prescribing capital punishment for young people who insult someone as "bald," (see http://bible.cc/... I'm grateful that there are progressive non-fundamentalist Jews who engage in exactly this kind of reflection. I'm grateful that there are progressive Muslims (for example, many feminist Muslims) who critically examine the Koran as well.

        I'm a pacifist, for example, and admire much of the work of Mohandas Gandhi. But I believe it's my responsibility to critically examine his life and work and critique his crimes as well (which I attempted to briefly do in an article I wrote, A Pacifist Critique of Gandhi).

        By the way, I don't think calling me an "imbecile," whatever my level of intelligence, adds to constructive debate.

        •  But you don't know what you're talking about... (0+ / 0-)

          and as a result, your comments, though extensive, are hardly "critical examination," any more than intelligent design is critical examination of evolution.

          For example, you rely on the work of James Carroll, whom you seem to consider a historian. He is not. He's simply someone who went through seminary. His book lacks sufficient documentation to make it a serious history as concerns the life of Jesus, which he nonetheless describes in a fair amount of detail.

          Worse still, you clearly don't understand (or else are willfully misrepresenting) Carroll's points. You say, for example, that the shouts of the mob and the crown of thorns are, per Carroll, "anti-Semitic" imagery, but he says nothing of the kind. See p. 85 of Constantine's Sword, for example. Carroll talks about sectarian conflict among Jews, not anti-Semitism. In fact, charges of "anti-Semitism" make no sense in the context of the Gospels. You don't seem to understand that.

          In essence, you have launched into a discussion for which your intellectual preparation is woefully inadequate. But that hasn't prevented you from opining at length. The proper characterization, however, for arguments of such minimal substance and validity is "imbecilic."

          Sorry if that characterization doesn't seem to fit your presumed level of intelligence. Try discussing something you have a clear understanding of if you wish to avoid such labels.

          (By the way, you're a high school history teacher???)

          •  Furthermore... (0+ / 0-)

            as I intended to say in my previous comment, the crown of thorns, according to the Gospels, was supposedly placed on Jesus' head by the Roman soldiers. Therefore, even under the extremely low standards of reasoning you set for yourself, the crown of thorns cannot possibly be considered an "anti-Semitic image," which you would realize had you actually bothered to read the text--the minimum requirement of any intelligent person criticizing a given text.

          •  James Carroll's Book (0+ / 0-)

            I quoted Carroll as a Christian who is a serious student of Christian anti-semitism. Sure, he's not a professional historian, but that's not a repudiation of his scholarship per se.

            Of course Carroll discusses the sectarian conflict among Jews, including on p. 85, as you say. That is not mutually exclusive with parts of the gospels being anti-semitic. James Carroll calls this section of the book, Part 2, "New Testament Origins of Jew Hatred." Given that section title, I don't think I'm misconstruing the overall point of these chapters.

            I didn't quote Carroll regarding the exegesis of particular bible chapters, and focused more on the mob than the thorns. But if you want to discuss the thorns, here is one passage, from John, 19:5-6, International Standard Version:

            Then Jesus came outside, wearing the victor's crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!" When the high priests and the officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate told them, "You take him and crucify him. I find no basis for a charge against him."

            Sure, in a previous verse it says that the crown of thorns was put on Jesus by the Romans. At the same time, the clear sense of the overall passage (and similar but not identical passages in Matthew and Mark) is that Pilate (contrary to historical accounts of Pilate's behavioral pattern) doesn't really want to crucify Jesus. In these accounts, Pilate is goaded into crucifixion by Jewish priests and officials. I would think Archbishop Dolan knows that quite well, and so do many of his Catholic listeners.

            As for the accuracy of my interpretation of Carroll's overall point that such passages are one of the bases of anti-semitism, as I quoted Carroll above, "The Passion narratives that Christians hear proclaimed from pulpits between now and Friday explicitly blame the murder of Jesus on 'the Jews.'" Carroll calls on Christians to repudiate these narratives in order to reject anti-semitism.

            You seem to despair that such self-reflection is possible, or maybe don't think it's desirable. I find it quite hopeful.

            I appreciate it that, instead of calling me an imbecile, in your next post, you characterized my arguments as imbecilic. As an "imbecile," I wouldn't be capable of recognizing or evaluating arguments. As someone who might sometimes make imbecilic arguments, though we disagree about the quality of these particular comments, I might have the potential to improve them.

            •  Is there no limit (0+ / 0-)

              to the mental contortions you will go through to justify using the term "anti-Semitism"?

              You say: "Sure, in a previous verse it says that the crown of thorns was put on Jesus by the Romans. At the same time, the clear sense of the overall passage (and similar but not identical passages in Matthew and Mark) is that Pilate (contrary to historical accounts of Pilate's behavioral pattern) doesn't really want to crucify Jesus."

              But your previous point was that the crown of thorns itself was an anti-Semitic image. You're not terribly worried about the validity of your argument, are you?

              As for Pilate, there are no good historical records of his "behavior," as you term it. There is every reason to believe that he was quite vicious and tyrannical, of course. Do we know how he behaved in the circumstances recounted in the Gospels? Absolutely not! But would you deny that evil men behave in inconsistent ways, sometimes appearing to be more benevolent than they are? Have you never heard accounts of the Klaus Barbie trial in France? (It occurred in the 1980s. Before you ask me the relevance of this, I suggest you do your own work on this subject and exercise your mind a bit before exercising your keyboard. In other words, try finding some primary sources, since I understand you're supposed to be a history teacher.)

              As for the shouts from the crowd recounted in the Gospels, the notion that a group of Jews may have called for a man's crucifixion is hardly a reflection on an entire people. Those same Gospels also recount how others wept to see Jesus led off. Here's a hint: those who wept were not the Romans.  

              At one point in your ramblings, you say that the Gospels recount that the Jews "forced" Pilate to crucify Jesus. It shouldn't have to be pointed out (but I suppose with you, I must) that this is a completely ahistorical interpretation, an interpretation that is tantamount to a gross misreading--if only a reading had actually occurred, which I seriously doubt. It is quite clear, both historically and in the context of the Gospels, that the Romans are perfectly in control and that the Jews are not capable of forcing the Romans to do anything. The fact is that Pilate is sufficiently indifferent to any real justice that he accedes to the will of the crowd, but it is he who orders the crucifixion. The Romans clearly did it. (Now they are Roman Catholics. Is that what gets them off the charge of deicide?)

              But you continue to refer to Carroll as if he backed up your case. Are you actually reading any more than the chapter headings? The chapter entitled "New Testament Origins of Jew Hatred" does NOT make any claims that the Gospels are anti-Semitic, so you clearly are misconstruing what Carroll wrote (once again, making the dubious assumption that you have actually read it). In fact, Carroll's point is quite different. His claim, although not adequately supported to make it reliable history, is that the growing sectarian conflict among Jews--those who were Christian and those who were not--shaped the New Testament narrative of Jesus' life. He considers that this sectarianism contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism (a later phenomenon) among non-Jewish Christians.

              Carroll wouldn't call the Gospels "anti-Semitic," since this would make no sense. They were written by Jews, and even the most ridiculous notions of "self-loathing Jews" could not justify finding anti-Semitism among Jews undergoing sectarian religious divisions.

              Ironically, you say that if you were an imbecile, you "wouldn't be capable of recognizing or evaluating arguments." In fact, I find your arguments to be so illogical (critics = NYT = Jews, for example), so ill informed, and so poorly thought out, that you do seem incapable of evaluating arguments. However, I sense that you may not be as stupid as the silliness of your arguments makes you seem but rather that your confusion results from some pyschological need to level charges of anti-Semitism. Dolan, for example, may or may not be anti-Semitic, but reading anti-Semitism into his speech requires such mental gymnastics as to be destructive of logic and rational thought. Certainly, the Catholic clerics involved in the pedophilia scandal have behaved abominably, but that is a different matter.

              In any case, your deliberate obtuseness exhausts my patience. You are perfectly within your rights to play the fool in a public forum, but I cannot waste any more of my time on discussing such idiocy.

    •  You're an imbecile: (0+ / 0-)

      "Dolan was explicitly quoting anti-Semitic texts"??? He was referring to imagery from the Gospels, which are among the holy books of Christianity. (By the way, they were written by Jews.) Asking Christians to repudiate the Gospels is like asking Jews to repudiate the Torah or Muslims to repudiate the Koran.

      You clearly are just too ignorant even to participate in the discussion you yourself initiated--without immediately displaying your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

      So what's it going to be next? Would you like to discuss Islam and avail us of your ignorance on that subject? Or would you prefer a more secular topic? Since you launched into this subject without knowing anything, I'm sure there's an abundance of subjects you know little or nothing about but could comment on extensively.

  •  the term "crucify" is pretty common (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dracowyrm

    and isn't always blamed on "the jews".

    as in,

    If he brings my daughter home late one more time, I am gonna crucify him!

  •  The Times also caused the plague.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eternal Hope

    How do I know this?  Because no one at the Times got the plague.  What they don't tell you is that everyone at the Times adheres to strict dietary laws and emphasizes personal hygiene.  They also don't shit in their own garden.

    Mark Sanford vacations in Argentina but John Ensign prefers the Hamptons.

    by mojave mike on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 04:12:39 PM PDT

  •  Must Read (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    Katha Pollitt's op-ed column in the Chicago Tribune:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...

    wherein she indirectly suggests in a particularly brutal way that the current resident of the Vatican should resign.

    I knew the guy was a creep, but the revelations of his holy creepiness keep on coming, like a torrential rain.

    What is essential is invisible.

    by bebimbob on Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 05:23:36 PM PDT

  •  every two-bit crook who's ever been busted.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    ... has ranted that the police were "out to get him."

    That's the lens through which we should see the present goings-on in the RCC.

    From a criminal justice point of view, what you have here is an organization that has engaged in an official cover-up of an international child molestation ring with thousands of known victims and potentially thousands of victims who may never be known.

    And what you have here are the officials of that organization whining about getting exposed.

    What the ones in the US deserve is to be prosecuted on RICO charges.

    And what the Pope deserves is the company of a dozen US Marines on a transport aircraft headed for the Hague.  

  •  the way you need to understand this... (0+ / 0-)

    ... is as a classic example of criminals complaining when they get caught.

    Same as any two-bit street thug who gets busted for robbing an old lady at gunpoint.  "I didn't do nuttin' wrong!  The cops have it out for me!"  Tell it to the judge.

  •  The difference between a religion and a cult (0+ / 0-)

    is made clear by how they respond to critics.

    Satrap Wanted. Lawless Central Asian region needs firm hand. Compensation paid in Opium, or an equal weight in Catamites. Must stay bought!

    by JesseCW on Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 02:30:37 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site