All you need to know about Hamas...

...is found in this video where one of its spokesbeings refuses to distance himself from the blood libel (the hellish medieval fraud that said Jews slaughtered Christian children for Passover matzos).

"I have Jewish friends"--ah, yes. Where have I heard that before?

When Hamas is destroyed, I'll advocate for the Gazans. But not a minute before.

While it is true that Hamas is expert at getting innocent Palestinians killed, it has made it very plain, in word and deed, that it would rather kill Jews. The following blood-freezing statement is from the group's charter: “The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

This is a frank and open call for genocide, embedded in one of the most thoroughly anti-Semitic documents you'll read this side of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not many people seem to know that Hamas’s founding document is genocidal. Sometimes, the reasons for this lack of knowledge are benign; other times, as the New Yorker’s Philip Gourevitch argues in his recent dismantling of Rashid Khalidi’s apologia for Hamas, this ignorance is a direct byproduct of a decision to mask evidence of Hamas’s innate theocratic fascism.

Of wars and rumors of wars.

Yeah, let's sell this swine more advanced weaponry. Good intentions, and all that.

Just think of Morsi as Arab anti-Semitism's newest wet nurse.

Quick reminder: McCain would have been no better.

Going to be a long, miserable century, I'm afraid.

I wonder who Aunt Bethany is going to mail her cat to for Christmas this year.

Helen Thomas, the former White House correspondent whose career began during the second Cleveland administration, proves once again that Jew-hatred rots the brain.

In a speech that drew a standing ovation, Thomas talked about "the whole question of money involved in politics."

"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way."

No, seriously--it's a delight to see a seminar ostensibly aimed at countering "anti-Arab bias" degenerate into anti-Semitism. Bravo.



"You know what's always bothered me about the Christmas story, Clark: Why so many Jews?"

Huzzahs!

No, this is not the beginning of a "walk in to a bar" joke:

Jewish and Muslim scholars protest English city's deletion of "Christmas" from city Christmas light display.

Executive Director of the from the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths, Dr Edward Kessler, who is Jewish, said: "'people of all faiths in this country should recognise that such developments are a curb on all our religious freedoms. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. If Christmas lights cannot be named as such how can the religious festivals celebrated by Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so on be openly celebrated? If restrictions are only imposed on Christian festivals (for the time being), the interfaith endeavour is threatened."

Prof. Kessler's Muslim counterpart is downright acidic:

Muslim colleague Dawud Bone, Stone Ashdown Director of the Centre for the Study of Muslim – Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute said: "To call this political correctness would be to flatter those who have arrived at this policy. I am unaware of any academic research that suggests anyone of any faith is offended by Christmas lights. They are therefore responding to a problem that almost certainly does not exist and in doing so they are creating a greater problem. I believe actions such as this can only damage community cohesion and reduce the respect individuals have for each other's faiths."

A hat-tip and thanks to you both!

[H/t to the incomparable Mark Steyn.]

A non-medical blog post!

OK, a long time coming, but here's something I posted over at the Jewish Forward newspaper, commenting on its understandable, if hyperbolic, editorial regarding the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops:

A fair editorial, but, despite its protestations to the contrary, I think it does boil over into hyperbole. First, all the Pope has done is rescind the excommunication order for the four bishops. Neither they nor their followers have been reconciled to the Catholic Church. More to the point, the decision relates to their consecration as bishops back in 1988--it has nothing to do with or say about their behaviors or commentary since.

Second, and the appalling Holocaust-denier Williamson has been unequivocally condemned by the head of the SSPX and its German branch for his comments on the Holocaust:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/superior-general-of-sspx-bishop.html [The link to the statement in German is there.] Yes, it is long, long overdue, and I have no doubt that it was the result of pressure, but there it is. Also, the fact that it finally came should be a sign of hope should the SSPX be reconciled.

Third, should that reconciliation come, the SSPX will have to embrace Nostra Aetate and the discipline of the Church, which will purify it of the Williamson mentalities which are admittedly present within the SSPX. Leaving them outside the Church will permit them to roll about the deck like the proverbial loose cannon. That is a grim problem especially when you consider that in France more people attend SSPX Masses every Sunday than attend Masses in communion with the Church.

Finally, the hyperbole about “traditional Catholic practices” straining Catholic-Jewish relations is a bit disturbing to me as a tradition-minded Catholic. John Allen also correctly noted that in this context that “the vast majority of ordinary Catholics attracted to the Latin Mass, or who harbor reservations about doctrinal innovations in the church, are neither bigots nor crackpots.” To hint otherwise does the editorial no credit and itself contributes to a climate of suspicion and distrust.

We need to sit down, take a deep breath and talk to each other, and not just through the preferred media of familiar, good-hearted figures like Fr. Pawlikowski, who while they constitute established figures of dialogue, do not represent the Church as a whole, nor are they necessarily expert in nor familiar with all of the issues involved.

This isn’t the Apocalypse, nor even an apocalypse, in Catholic-Jewish relations. Let us reason together.

As an addendum, I think everybody in media would be better served if they avoided the Rolodex approach to talking Catholic issues. This is a virtual virus, the lazy decision to consult with the same comfortable figures time and again with respect, which is officially known as McBrien-Reese Syndrome.

Cafeteria denizens sink to a new low.

Remember that Allam thread?

Now anti-Jewish conspiracy theories are getting an airing. Scroll down to the "I encourage you all to" comment.

Specifically, that Israeli intelligence is going to run a false flag operation to provoke a war between Christianity and Islam. Joooooooooooooooooos!

Though the jihadis need precious little provocation, as Buddhists in Thailand and Hindus in India can readily testify.

Nevertheless, this conspiratorial assclownery gets multiple big thumbs up from our Progressive Betters!

Won't you please join me in giving this ancient evil stupidity a swift kick?

Photograph of Anne Frank's "one true love" found.

A picture of Peter Schiff has been discovered.

She writes in her diary: "I forgot that I haven't yet told you the story of my one true love."

"Peter was the ideal boy: tall, slim and good-looking, with a serious, quiet and intelligent face," Anne wrote of the 13-year-old she had fallen for in 1940 when she was just 11.

They would collect each other from school and walk hand in hand through their local neighborhood.

"He had dark hair, beautiful brown eyes, ruddy cheeks and a nicely pointed nose. I was crazy about his smile, which made him look so boyish and mischievous."

Peter later died in Auschwitz, while Anne died in Bergen Belsen concentration camp in 1945.



Photo credit.

I've been to her house in Amsterdam. If you are ever there, go.

Follow the money.

Or in Jimmy Carter's case, the stench.

Alan Dershowitz hangs No. 39 out to dry regarding questionable sources of income.

My bookshelves will have a little more space after this evening.

They are going to be one Robert Sungenis title shorter(1). I've decided that Not By Faith Alone shall go the way of all flesh as a (minor) protest. And by that, I mean "removed from any form of circulation whatsoever." The used bookstore won't see it, either.

Perhaps my own gloss on Exsurge Domine? I'm itching to grill.

The good news--if the author in question repents, I'll buy another copy. Everybody wins.

---------
(1) I'm keeping Not By Scripture Alone. He didn't write all of that one.

Happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends and neighbors!



Interestingly enough, the festival is not recorded in Hebrew Bibles (which is no big deal, of course). For the curious, though, the holiday's origin is located in Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments. The most detailed account is in 1 Maccabees 4 (an unjustly neglected book even by those who venerate it as inspired). Starting at verse 36:

36
Then Judas and his brothers said, "Now that our enemies have been crushed, let us go up to purify the sanctuary and rededicate it."
37
So the whole army assembled, and went up to Mount Zion.
38
They found the sanctuary desolate, the altar desecrated, the gates burnt, weeds growing in the courts as in a forest or on some mountain, and the priests' chambers demolished.
39
Then they tore their clothes and made great lamentation; they sprinkled their heads with ashes
40
and fell with their faces to the ground. And when the signal was given with trumpets, they cried out to Heaven.
41
Judas appointed men to attack those in the citadel, while he purified the sanctuary.
42
He chose blameless priests, devoted to the law;
43
these purified the sanctuary and carried away the stones of the Abomination to an unclean place.
44
They deliberated what ought to be done with the altar of holocausts that had been desecrated.
45
The happy thought came to them to tear it down, lest it be a lasting shame to them that the Gentiles had defiled it; so they tore down the altar.
46
They stored the stones in a suitable place on the temple hill, until a prophet should come and decide what to do with them.
47
Then they took uncut stones, according to the law, and built a new altar like the former one.
48
They also repaired the sanctuary and the interior of the temple and purified the courts.
49
They made new sacred vessels and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple.
50
Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these illuminated the temple.
51
They also put loaves on the table and hung up curtains. Thus they finished all the work they had undertaken.
52
Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chislev, in the year one hundred and forty-eight,
53
they arose and offered sacrifice according to the law on the new altar of holocausts that they had made.
54
On the anniversary of the day on which the Gentiles had defiled it, on that very day it was reconsecrated with songs, harps, flutes, and cymbals.
55
All the people prostrated themselves and adored and praised Heaven, who had given them success.
56
For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar and joyfully offered holocausts and sacrifices of deliverance and praise.
57
They ornamented the facade of the temple with gold crowns and shields; they repaired the gates and the priests' chambers and furnished them with doors.
58
There was great joy among the people now that the disgrace of the Gentiles was removed.
59
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.

Enjoy those eight crazy nights!

Islamic reform?

Someone's taking a crack at it--in Turkey. An official Islamic body is attempting to delete some of the more offensive of the hadiths. Rather surprisingly, there's been only minimal grumbling and no protests. It has the the full backing of the Turkish government, too--which is currently dominated by an openly Islamic (and rather conservative) party.

Here's hoping.

Oh, and because I can't resist OTOH, consider this Freedom House report on Saudi hate literature found in American mosques [scroll down for the link].

Something to keep in mind as my humble suburb gets its first mosque, due to open in 2007.

Oh, and Bernard Lewis, a respected authority on Islam and the Arab world, has taken notice of significance of August 22.

Pie in the sky, by and by.

Madness. A complete disconnect from reality.

Those are the words that come to mind in reading former American ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn's commentary on the war in Lebanon, published in the most recent issue of the National Catholic Register.

I don't say that lightly. As someone who hopes the Democrats come back to their Truman/Kennedy/Humphrey/Scoop Jackson senses (and who has a yard sign for a local Dem on his lawn), I have always liked Ray Flynn. He is a connection to a Democratic past that is a whole lot more palatable to me than their Koss-ack/Deanie Baby/Fun with Blackface present.

But this offering from Flynn is nothing short of blinkered. And worse.

A few words beforehand. First, what many non-Catholics fail to recognize in the Church's positioning on the war can be summed up in one word: Maronites. As in the Maronite Catholic Church, whose home is in Lebanon. Consequently, the Vatican can hardly be sanguine about a shooting war taking place in the neighborhood of her largest and healthiest Church in the Levant, and rightfully so. Analysis of the criticism by Rome needs to keep this indispensible fact in mind.

And no, I don't regard Israel's military actions as above reproach, including an early targetting package that seemed calculated to do as much damage to the Lebanese government as to Hezbollah. Israel is a civilized Western nation that has to be held to a civilized standard.

But, but, but.

Look carefully at Flynn's piece. Look for the following words: Hezbollah, Islamic, and terrorist.

Total running tally: one--for terrorist. And it's a quote, not Ray Flynn's own word.

Instead, we are treated to a caning of Israel--and Israel alone. Along with "political extremists" and "special interest groups."

For which the only sensible reading in the context of the essay is "Jews," of course. Which adds a faintly sinister cast to the piece as well, I'm sorry to say.

Not a shred of the essay shows the slightest awareness of the existence of the puppetmasters in Syria or Iran. Instead, Israel is the bully.

This failure to understand the basic facts on the ground would be amazing if it weren't so utterly sickening.

Would Flynn be so detached if the Republic of Ireland had struck back after the Ulster Volunteer Force had raided into County Monaghan, killing and kidnapping Irish troops? Would he be telling the Republican Irish that they needed to forebear while the UVF lobbed Katushyas into Ireland in a belt from Mayo to Wicklow?

Sure, no analogy is perfect, but in that case I doubt we'd be hearing words about the Irish lobby's pernicious influence on American politics and tarring of the U.S.' reputation as an honest broker.

A tragic misstep from an otherwise sensible man--but one that needs to be repudiated nonetheless.

Mel's Der Sturmer moment.

Grim--and more than a little embarrassing, given the pixels I emitted defending him and his film project in 2003 and 2004.

As I've said in the past, the anti-Semitic cast of too many traditionalists is one thing that repels me from joining their ranks.

A couple of things to keep in mind, though:

(1) I'm not sure how far the fruit can fall from the tree, but remember what he was raised with. Yes, he loves his father (with many good reasons), but his father is, to put it charitably, a Jew-hater. Being raised around such views is unhealthy, to say the least. But--we have to judge Mel by Mel's actions, not Hutton's. His public (and near as we can tell, private) behavior is light years from that of his father.

(2) In vino veritas is mostly, if not totally, bullshit. Getting hammered on alcohol makes you a staggering, slurring id machine--it does not reveal "the real you."

I've been blind, stinking drunk on a few occasions, none in the last 10-12 years (with age comes some painfully earned wisdom). Least memorably, at one Christmas party held by the grocery store I worked at in the mid-80s to early 90s. I say "least memorably" because I remember nothing of the last two hours, culminating in a dignity-affirming bout of barfing all over myself. I have it on eyewitness authority that I was a belligerent jerk who had to be rescued by co-workers from a pending fistfight. Apparently, I ordered a less-inebriated gentleman to vacate "my seat," liberally using the f-bomb. Naturally, I hadn't sat in that seat at any point during the evening. The only reason I didn't get clocked was, and I quote: "Even though you were acting like a jackass, the other guy is an asshole sober. Everybody hates him."

To make a long story short, the drunken thing I was that evening wasn't the "real" me. The only thing people really learned about me that night was that I can't handle clear spirits.

Likewise with Mel Gibson--the only thing we have learned about him is that he is an alcoholic in need of help.

Oh, and that he avoids passive-voice non-apologies for appalling conduct, too.

The Anti-Semitic Disease.

Pretty solid essay by Paul Johnson, who argues that anti-Semitism has all the hallmarks of a form of mental illness. However, I think the comparison with anti-Americanism at the end is an overreach on his part. But still, well worth reading, especially since it has sharp observations like this:

Asked to explain why they hate Jews, anti-Semites contradict themselves. Jews are always showing off; they are hermetic and secretive. They will not assimilate; they assimilate only too well. They are too religious; they are too materialistic, and a threat to religion. They are uncultured; they have too much culture. They avoid manual work; they work too hard. They are miserly; they are ostentatious spenders. They are inveterate capitalists; they are born Communists. And so on. In all its myriad manifestations, the language of anti-Semitism through the ages is a dictionary of non-sequiturs and antonyms, a thesaurus of illogic and inconsistency.

Oh, and a handy warning from your host here: I have no patience with casuists who try to redefine anti-Semitism. Absolutely none. Ditto statements which indicate hatred of Jews, mention of alleged Jewish conspiracy theories and the like, all of which activate my hair-trigger delete and ban policy.

Anathema sit.

I saw TPOTC last night.

Part I of a multi-part review.

I wanted to see it yesterday afternoon, but it was sold out through the next-to-last showing. I think we are seeing the beginnings of a bona fide phenomenon here. I ended up seeing the last showing of the day--also sold out.

What do I think? It is hard for me to say I "love" the film--it does not lend itself easily to that characterization, but that eventually will bring me to a related point, so bear with me.

First, to the controversial points.

1. Anti-Semitism.

It's not for me to tell Jews how to react to the film. I think, though, that the wisest commentary on this issue has been from Dennis Prager, who says that Jews and Christians are seeing two different films. Honestly, I don't see how one could come to the conclusion that the film indicts all Jews of the time, let alone all Jews, in every time and place. Sympathetic Jews abound--at the Sanhedrin trial, and all throughout Jerusalem and the Via Dolorosa. You have to be trying not to notice them. More importantly, in making Caiaphas the central focus of villainy, the film takes the steam out of a collective guilt interpretation. One is left with the inclination to dislike "this guy" as opposed to "all these guys." That said, I would have like to see a more humanized Caiaphas, along the lines of Pilate, an exploration of motivations. This could have been done with a couple of lines he said in John.

When I get my $25 million, I can shoot my own film.

But perhaps the best rebuttal of the anti-Semitic charge comes in the form of one character--Simon of Cyrene, press-ganged into helping Christ carry His cross. A very reluctant figure (a father with a young daughter), he initially makes very clear for all the bystanders that he's not the condemned criminal here. Nevertheless, he quickly becomes a heroic figure, stopping the relentless abuse from the hellish Roman guards, at no small risk to himself. For all intents and purposes, he willingly bears the load up to Golgotha.

All very well and good, critics might say--how does that help?

How is Simon garbed? Throughout, he prominently wears the most common religious garb seen today on Jewish believers--a yarmulke.

Hint, hint.

2. The Violence.

It's grim, and I know I and the rest of the audience were horrified.

[Insert favorite qualifier here]

I've seen far, far worse. "Pornographic?" Puh-leez. The violence in the critics-darling Scream flicks was far worse--Drew Barrymore's character being disembowled and hung from a tree, for starters (literally). Hello? Nightmare on Elm Street 1 (another critical fave-rave), with its Johnny Depp blood geyser, anyone?

Then there's the non-slasher flicks--like those of Tarantino (who I generally like)--that are more violent. Reservoir Dogs' cop-torturing scene, along with Tim Roth virtually swimming in a spreading pool of his own blood, come to mind. Saving Private Ryan was more gruesome. And, speaking as someone who's seen Woo's Hardboiled, where the body count literally requires a digital counter, TPOTC is something of a piker in the violence department. I think S.T. Karnick at National Review Online has it nailed--the difference is, we care about this victim.

None of this is to deny that TPOTC is disturbingly violent--it most certainly is. The scourging scene is nothing short of horrific. But it would be interesting to cross-reference the negative Passion reviews with the same critics' takes on the other films mentioned above. I have a suspicion it would be very revealing.

3. Historical Accuracy.

Which brings me to one Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea, 26-36 A.D. I thought he was a little too sympathetic. For my money, Rod Steiger's version in Jesus of Nazareth seemed to get it better. Still, let us lay to rest the notion that the Jewish leadership had no pressure points over Pilate. In 26 AD, he had the legions enter Jerusalem bearing shields with the image of the Emperor Tiberius. According to Josephus, outraged Jewish leaders protested to his superior in Syria, who ordered Pilate to remove them. According to Philo, in 32 AD following the execution of his patron, Sejanus, by Tiberius, Pilate attempted to suck up by having shields bearing Tiberius' name inside Jerusalem. This time, the leadership went straight to Tiberius, who immediately rebuked and overruled Pilate. In 33 AD, certain members of the leadership had a problem with a Galilean preacher...

Let's just say "you are no friend of Caesar" would have a special resonance under these circumstances.

A better point would be to question why the bloody Pilate would have hesitated in getting rid of another Jewish troublemaker. I look at it this way--it is consistent with human nature to take the opportunity to grind your heel into the insteps of people who irritate you. It is also fully consistent with the Roman principle of "divide and rule." Finally, it takes into account the effect our Lord had on people in his earthly ministry. Anyone else remember Jesus' effect on a particularly corrupt tax farmer named Zaccheus?

In other words, the psychology of the situation is more complex than those screaming "unhistorical" are willing to grant.

More to come.

It's here.

Some reviews and commentary, sublime and...less so. Me? No, haven't seen it yet. If you're looking for the relentlessly negative reviews, or the negative aspects of even four-star reviews, Michelle has the link for you! A little pinch of arsenic (or a bucket--Carroll? Please...) in every bite.

Still, Jewish concerns are warranted, valid, and must be considered. Here are three reviews by men of goodwill. Read them all.

Michael Medved.
Dennis Prager.
Jeff Jacoby.

"Dialogue" often gets a bad rap, and often deservedly so. Here's an example of a worthwhile meeting about the film between Catholics and Jews living in the Diocese of Grand Rapids.

The Jewish Federation of Grand Rapids bought out two theaters for joint screenings with area Catholics. Leaders of the Jewish community and the Catholic Diocese aimed to defuse divisiveness through dialogue.

Catholic Bishop Kevin Britt hailed it as perhaps the largest public gathering of Catholics and Jews the area has seen.

"It is our prayer that over time this evening will be another step in understanding between Catholics and our Jewish brothers and sisters," Britt said during a discussion following one of the showings.

He noted the Second Vatican Council denounced anti-Semitism and declared neither all ancient Jews nor Jews today should be held responsible for Jesus' death.

Britt said he saw no anti-Jewish slant in Gibson's film, calling it "very powerful."

"I don't think I'll be able to read the gospel again with the same eyes," Britt said. "To see the real physical suffering Christ endured will give it a whole new meaning."

Though extremely violent by today's standards, he added, the movie "might be reflective of what really happened."

Rabbi David Krishef disagreed, calling the violence "over the top" compared to gospel texts. But Krishef said warnings of the film's anti-Jewish content were overblown.

"I walked into the movie expecting something that would be very obviously and explicitly anti-Semitic," said Krishef, leader of Congregation Ahavas Israel. "Honestly, I didn't see it. I saw glimpses here and there."

He asked Jews to keep in mind most Christians won't see anti-Semitism, but a powerful interpretation of a sacred text. But he reminded Christians, "when we Jews see this crowd of people demanding the crucifixion of Jesus, we take it personally."

For the full smorgasbord of reviews, try Rotten Tomatoes. It's running about 51/49 positive negative, as of right now. Speaking of which, here are four balanced, but positive, reviews from a variety of sources.

James Berardinelli's Reel Views.
Terry Lawson (Detroit Free Press).
The USCCB (apparently they didn't get the scholars' memo--fundamentalism is everywhere--AAAAIIIIIEE!)
Kenneth Woodward of Newsweek. I particularly enjoy these quotes from Woodward:

More than 60 years ago, H. Richard Neibuhr summarized the creed of an easygoing American Christianity that has in our time triumphantly come to pass: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." Despite its muscular excess, Mr. Gibson's symbol-laden film is a welcome repudiation of all that.
* * *
It is easy, of course, to contrast third-millennium Christian mores with the story of Christ's Passion. Like other Americans, Christians want desperately to know that they are loved, in the words of the old Protestant hymn, "just as I am." But the love of God, as Dorothy Day liked to put it, "is a harsh and dangerous love" that requires real transformation. It is not the sort imagined by today's spiritual seekers who are "into" Asian religions.

Significantly, the Passion and death of Jesus is the chief element in the Gospel story that other religions cannot accept. In Islam, Jesus does not die on the cross because such a fate is considered unfitting for a prophet of Allah. By Hindus and Buddhists, Jesus is often regarded as a spiritual master, but the story of his suffering and death are considered unbecoming of an enlightened sage. Like the Buddha, the truly liberated transcend suffering and death. But Jesus submits to it — willingly, Christians believe — for the sins of all.

Finally, the...less than sublime.

Two winners of the H. Richard Niebuhr Award for Missing The Point Entirely:

David Van Biema, from Time, who celebrates our wondrous, sinless, superior selves:

The Passion of the Christ is a one-note threnody about the Son of God being dragged to his death. That may be just the ticket for some times and for some benighted places where understanding human torment in terms of God's love is the only religious insight of any use. But in a culture as rich, as powerful, as lucky and as open-minded as ours — one might even say, as blessed — it is, or should be, a very bad fit indeed.

Actually, Mr. Van Biema, that makes it a perfect fit for our smug, well-fed, bored, half-anethesized consciences which can only work up a yawn or titillated smirk at the myriad horrors in our midst.

The nothing-if-not-consistent Deacon Bronson Havard of the Diocese of Dallas.

Many people who saw the screenings of “The Passion” could not articulate how they felt afterwards, except to be repulsed.

And the others, Bron? Besides, last time I checked, crucifixion is repulsive. That was the fricking point.

Shock treatment about the crucifixion is not a substitute for understanding Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or his opposition to religious legalism, oppressive governments and caste systems. The movie has too few flashbacks to Jesus’ ministry to give a clear picture of what his life was about.

Maybe there's not much of the rest of it--I don't know, perhaps--could just be--theoretically, I hasten to add--because the film is called THE PASSION of the Christ, you twit! If it were called The Sermon of The Christ, or The Teaching of The Christ, or The Distinctive Table Fellowship of The Christ, or The Imagined Fuzzy Bunny Inclusiveness of The Christ As Presented By the Spokesflack of the Diocese of Dallas, you'd have a point. But, as it stands now--objection overruled.

Jesus stressed the dignity of each human being. He freed men and women of all backgrounds to know each other as brothers and sisters who are loved by their Creator.

First sentence--Yep. Second sentence--Maalox. Remember the quote from Niebuhr. Actually, Jesus freed us from sin, restoring us to a loving Father we had rejected by preferring everything else in the world to Him. There was only one way He could do that, too. Unfortunately for The Rev. Havard and the rest of the Luv Bunny Brigade, there's no avoiding the scandal of the Cross. Even if you're the pointman for a Catholic Diocese.

To embrace the cross in Christian theology is to truly know the liberating power of love.

"Everyone, open your hymn book to song number 38.

Come on, people now, smile on your brother/
Everybody get together and love one another right now..."

No, Rev. Havard: There's no way out but through. You can't get to Easter without living through Good Friday.

True ecumenism in action.

"Just pray that I shall be adequate."--Rev. Clark Poling, Dutch Reformed pastor and hero aboard the U.S.A.T. Dorchester on February 3, 1943.

The prayer was answered--and then some--that cold February morning. A German U-Boat torpedoed the Dorchester, a troop transport on the way to Britain. Four chaplains--one Jewish, one Catholic, one Reformed and one Methodist--gave the last full measure of devotion to their country and God that cold morning, organizing the survivors, passing out life jackets, and ultimately giving up their own. Read the whole story.

Thanks to Chris Johnson for the link.

Edgardo Mortara.

Has become the subject of discussion at Mark's place as he awaits the diagnosis. It's also the subject of a recent book which looks interesting.

My thoughts? Let me quote a less-controversial film involving Mel Gibson:

"Give me back my son!"

Those of you inclined to give Pio Nono the benefit of the doubt should consider a recent case where a similar tactic is being used against a Christian mother by her Muslim brother-in-law, with the backing of the courts of Jordan. In light of this, the superiority of John Paul II's approach is beyond question.

"Do you ever blog about anything other than the Gibson film?"

--you may be developing good reason to ask.

Well...it's heating back up again. What can I say?

Yesterday, Barbara Nicolosi offered a providential example corroborating that whole lengthy "house dividing" essay below. She quit Ligourian magazine after they refused to print her review:

They refused to print my review of The Passion because they are afraid of siding with a film that some people are saying is anti-Semitic. They wanted to me rewrite my review to be less of a rave and "more balanced" - whatever that is in a movie review. My sense is the anti-Semitism thing is just a blind for the real issue - if Mel was a liberal, they would have no problem with the film. The magazine is setting itself on the wrong side of this whole question...and I do not choose to be on the wrong side with them.

"Man, I'm tired of being right!"

She also has an interesting account of her experience "debating" the film on NPR, along with Michael Medved and against Prof. Fredriksen and Peter Boyer of The New Yorker. Why the "scare" quotes? Because it's hard to debate when you're gagged by the moderator....Take and read.

Which brings me to the most recent issue of OSV, containing a useful examination of the controversy. It's not yet online, but it contained some interesting nuggets, such as the fact that the actress playing Mary, the Mother of God, is, er, um Jewish and a Yiddish recording star in her native Rumania. Then again, she's not a "mainstream" Catholic scholar wielding "modern biblical scholarship," so she likely was unable to notice the problems with the script.

OSV also published some new evidence, quoting from e-mail obtained from the script's translator, that the script was obtained under dubious circumstances.

Also, Michael Medved gave an interview, calling the anti-Semitic claims "insane" and offering an interesting analysis of the anti-Semitic nature of Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. He even approached the ADL about the problems with that film in hopes of getting them to protest, but the League was uninterested. [Thanks to Patrick Sweeneyfor the tipoff about the OSV article.]

Finally, a writer at Enter Stage Right posts a worthwhile analysis of the controversy in three installments, using Kierkegaard's ruminations on Jesus' ministry and the Passion as the framework for his essay. [Link via Relapsed Catholic].

All Mel. All The Time.

Yet another look the blow-up surrounding Mel's film, this time by the CT Weblog. The Catholic members of the Disclaimer Committee just won't shut up:

An unnamed "leading Catholic theologian" called the script "one of the more anti-Semitic documents most of us have seen in a long time." (It had to be one of the following Catholics, all members of an advisory committee to the Bishops Conference on Catholic-Jewish affairs: Mary Boys of the Union Theological Seminary; Philip Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College; Lawrence Frizzell, director of the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University; John Pawlikowski, director of Catholic Jewish studies at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.)

"The Anti-Defamation League and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reviewed the script and we wrote a report that was sent to Mr. Gibson's company," Boys told The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia . But apparently Sister Mary and her colleagues lost sight of the very important distinction between a statement by the conference and the one of members of the conference. The opinion of advisory board members is even more removed.

What is needed, of course, is some helpful context about the theological inclinations of Boys & The Boys. Your diligent host here at DM is happy to provide it. From last October, via Touchstone's Lee Podles, when this endeavor was still waddling around in short pants:

"In August 2002 a committee of US Conference of Catholic Bishops, co-chaired by William Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, issued a report, Reflections on Covenant and Mission. It contained some odd statements about the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, and was attacked by some Catholics. The chief offending sentence stated that “targeting Jews for conversion to Christianity” is “no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Cardinal Avery Dulles in America (10-21-2002) doesn’t like this sentence either. He does not see how it is consistent with statements in Paul and Hebrews.

Although Cardinal Keeler pointed out that Reflections document was unofficial, such unofficial documents have a way of being presented as official teaching. A draft of a report of a bishops’ committee, All Our Children, is always trotted out as the official teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

Three members of the Advisory Committee on Catholic-Jewish Relations for the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (the committee that wrote the controversial report) responded in America to Dulles: Mary Boys, Philip Cunningham, and John Pawlikowski.

Boys, Cunningham, and Pawlikowski claim that “The magisterium can explicitly contradict an idea of an individual New Testament author because the Catholic tradition is one of commentary, not of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).”

Really? Well, I guess Jack Chick was right after all.

Now hear this: Stop. Speaking. On. My. Behalf. Right. Now.

Why is "ecumenical dialogue" so often the preserve of sloppy, free-range, compromising malcontents, anyway? Of what value are the fruits of such "dialogue" when you've abandoned your own position from the get-go?

Time to get the Motrin.