Ignoring Hitler did not stop him, and ignoring the Islamic State will not stop it, either

For reasons that I cannot fathom, NBC did not cover the kidnapping of some 150 Assyrian Christians by the Islamic State. NBC was not alone in this, as Telemundo and Univison also did not cover it, and ABC and CBS gave it only a passing mention.

It has been suggested for some time now - by those both within and without the media - that the media should not cover the activities and atrocities of the Islamic State because doing so gives them more exposure and turns the jihadists into celebrities.

As you might imagine, I have never agreed with this line of thinking because it is akin to saying, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." It seems to indicate a certain line of thinking that if we ignore the Islamic State it will lose influence and fade away. This is simply foolish and very dangerous.

The argument makes as much sense as arguing that the media should not have covered the growing influence and strength of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis or the horrors of the Holocaust. No one - so far as I have seen - would make this argument about the Nazis, so why use it in reference to the Islamic State?

In many ways, though, too many people - both within and without the media - did in fact remain silent. They refused to see evil, hear evil, and speak of evil and so Hitler rose to power and he and his Nazis moved to eradicate the Jews, as this video demonstrates all too well:

Because people did not speak out and act forcefully when they knew full well horrendous evils were being committed by the Nazis, 11,000,000,000 were killed.

It happened not that long ago, and it can happen again today. I dare say it will, unless we change our response to the Islamic State.

Ignoring Hitler did not stop him. Ignoring the Islamic State will not stop it.

WYD protesters proven very wrong

Throughout the World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid this past August, protesters gathered each evening to protest the costs paid the Spanish and Madrid government associated with the WYD.

As it turns out - and was known at the time - the entire cost of the WYD was covered by registration and fees and private donations; the government paid nothing.  But neither the protesters nor the media - particularly the British media - paid no attention to this fact.

A few days ago the WYD organizing office announced a staggering a figure of profits made in Madrid during the course of the WYD: $200 million.

Will the protesters now kindly apologize?  I won't hold my breath.

Will the media now kindly apologize?  I won't hold my breath for that, either.

Bad reporting

We are told by the Catholic News Agency that Msgr. Georg Ratzinger, brother of the Pope, recently gave an interview to the Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli. In this interview - according to the article - Msgr. Ratzinger "revealed several unknown details from the childhood of the Pontiff, such as when he said one time that Benedict would be a good name for a pope, and that he never attended Hitler Youth meetings he was obliged to sign up for."

Apparently the author of the article has not read then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones, in which he very clearly states that he never attended meetings of the Hitler Youth. Unkown details, indeed.

I'm quite surprised

I've just finished speaking with the Editor (the publisher is on vacation) of the Effingham Daily News.

I called to discuss last night's Letter to the Editor. I view this letter as libelous against me and against the Catholic Church and everyone that I have spoken with and read the letter views it in the same letter.

The Editor strongly denies and when asked if I were to write a similar letter regarding a Protestant denomination, she would not say if she would publish the letter, skirting around it by saying the letters are "opinions."

At one point she told me if I wanted to pursue the libel I would have to do so in a different way. I asked that way would be and she told me I should speak with a lawyer.

Very well. I will.

I'm quite shocked she actually told me to call a lawyer. And I don't expect she'll publish my response.

If you're in the area reading this and think Mr. N.'s most recent letter was indeed libelous, would you mind dropping a note to the Editor at:

Effingham Daily News
201 North Banker Street
Effingham, Illinois 62401

My response

What follows is my response to yesterday's Letter to the Editor published in the Effingham Daily News.

What Beatification and Canonization Really Mean

Mr. Michael Antrim’s most recent letter, “Let us speak where the Bible speaks,” published in the Effingham Daily News 8 March 2008 demonstrates a tremendous lack of understanding in Catholic belief. Why the EDN continues to publish such libelous letters is beyond me. Let us clarify a few things for those who are confused.

The word “saint” is derived from the Latin sanctus, meaning “holy;” the word in Greek is hagios. We speak, then, for example, of “holy” Anthony of Padua.

Saint Paul addresses himself “to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy,” making the distinction that not all of the beloved of God are saints yet (Romans 1:7). Simply because we are called to be holy does not mean that each of us lives a holy life. To call a member of the baptized who does not faithfully follow the Gospel a “saint,” that is, “holy,” would be false. Nevertheless, such a person is still called to be a saint.

This distinction is neglected in the letter. Consider someone who believes in and confesses Christ, repents of his sins, is baptized, but does not always walk in the newness of life, but returns to his sins. Though such a person could once have been called holy, can one still be called holy if living in deep sin?

To help inspire us to live holy lives, the Church holds up the example of men and women whom she has canonized and officially declared “Saints,” having found them to have lived holy lives. The lives of these men and women from every way of life show us the many ways that the Gospel can be lived in fidelity; they show us that living the Gospel is possible, even for us.

The word “canonization” comes from the Greek kanon, meaning, “measuring rod.” When the Church proposes a member of the faithful for beatification or canonization, their life is measured against that of Christ. If the person is found to have a lived a holy life then they progress through the various stages of beatification and canonization to be officially declared a Saint and held up as a model for all, following the words of Saint Paul, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1).

Certainly there are countless men and women who have lived holy lives but have not been officially canonized, measured by the Church against the life of Christ. For this reason the Church celebrates All Saints Day. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes the need for examples of faith and so she proposes certain members of the faithful as true and authentic guides to the Christian life and faith.

The official process of beatification has been tightened, so to speak, to ensure that the men and women who are proposed for beatification did indeed live holy lives and are worthy of imitation. Canonization does not say that the Church makes a saint out of a person who was not already a saint at death. The Church requires a person be dead before the inquiry into their sanctity precisely so the person does not lapse into sin after the process has begun. This is a simple matter of caution.

The letter claims that the Church’s “foundation is Christ (and not Peter and those who follow the teachings of Judaism).” Here is displayed an ignorance of the Catholic Church and a sheer unwillingness to listen to another person, for we have been through this with him before.

The Church was founded by Christ upon Peter; this cannot be refuted (Matthew 16:18).

It ought to be considered that the Church with two thousand years of consistent teaching might know more than one individual. The author of the letter would do well to learn the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church, not what others claim the Church teaches.

If the Bible does not contain the process for canonization as the letter asserts, then the author should follow his own advice and be silent.

A anti-Catholic speaks again

Just when I was beginning to wonder what I might speak about on the radio Monday morning, an item just dropped in my lap.

A man with much presumed knowledge - which is, nonetheless, quite lacking - has taken it upon himself again to write another Letter to the Editor against the Catholic Church.

The letter, filled with falsehoods and libel, was published in yesterday's edition of the Effingham Daily News, showing, yet again, the newspapers anti-Catholic bias.

The letter, titled "Let us speak where the Bible speaks," reads as follows:

In the Feb. 19 edition of the EDN , [sic] the article titled “Sainthood” from the AP in Vatican City announced “the Vatican is making it tougher to become a saint.” Of course, like much of the teachings of the Vatican, the “beatification” process for sainthood is not found in the Holy Bible.

The term “saint” as used in the New Covenant of Christ (the New Testament) refers simply to all Christians. Those who have separated themselves from the world, those who believe in Christ (see Acts9:13, Romans 15:26, Philippians 4:21, 1 [sic] Timothy 5:10 and many more). It refers to both those who are alive and to those who died as Christians.

The Bible never once refers to “saints” as those who have passed the Vatican’s test of sainthood. To be a saint, one must simply believe (Mark 16:16) and confess Christ is the Son of God (Matthew 10:32-33), repent (turn away from) your sins (Luke 13:3) and walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-4), according to the New Covenant of Christ (Jude 3 :3 [sic]).

According to the article the Vatican’s definition of saint must require you already be dead. The scriptures are quite plain in teaching that if you are not a saint when you pass away that you certainly are not going to become one later (Hebrews 6:4-8).

If you do not believe the “Universal Church of the Vatican” has a problem with adding or taking away from the word of God the “Sainthood” article refers to the “new procedures announced Monday …” [sic]. I fail to correlate these new revelations from Vatican City with the New Covenant pronouncement in Jude 1:3, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (2 [sic] Thessalonians 2 [sic]).

It is my duty, as well as the duty of the church, whose foundation is Christ (not Peter and those who follow the teachings of Judaism) (I Corinthians 3 :11 [sic], “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”) to point out things that would be observed and established by those who have turned away. Many people who want to be among the saved at the Judgment are simply not aware of these things.

Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. But do not take my word for it – read the Bible for yourselves.

Currently, I am praying for the intercession of Saint Jerome because all I want to do is lash out with one ad hominem attack after another, which would be most easy and irrefutable. However, knowing that is not that the charitably road to walk, I am also praying for the intercession of Saint Thomas More, that I might respond both intelligently and humorously.

I had hoped to have my response finished before Mass this morning, but it I will not be able to finish it until later this afternoon. My current response is already two pages long and I haven't addressed each of his issues; it needs to be condensed.

Rest assured that I will be speaking with the Editor about this tomorrow and I will demand to speak with the Publishers (who, after two months now, still has not returned a letter I wrote to him or three voice messages I left for him).

Another Letter to the Editor

What follows is the Letter to the Editor I intend to submit tomorrow in response to Associated Press article, "Interfaith leaders say Jewish groups may be overestimating impact of revised Catholic prayer." Your comments are welcome.

Clarification on the Church’s Prayer

On February 5, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI altered a prayer to be used in the celebrations of the Good Friday liturgy of the Missal of Pope John XXIII – the so-called Tridentine Rite - in Catholic Churches.

According to an Associated Press article published in the Effingham Daily News 22 February 2008, the prayer that was altered “had historically been used as an excuse for violence and discrimination against the Jews.” This claim simply is not possible since Pope John XXIII had already revised the same prayer in 1962.

When asked about the 1962 prayer, Cardinal George bluntly asked, “'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?”

The point the Cardinal makes is that people can offend Catholics all they want and nobody cares but when someone happens to be offended by a Catholic people go up in arms. The Anti-Defamation League has gone so far as to put Pope Benedict XVI on the same list as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The basic premise of the article - written two weeks after the prayer - comes down to the fact that some people – the media in particular – do not think the Catholic Church has the right to pray for the conversion of people of other faiths.

Three times each day in synagogues throughout the world the Jewish people pray for the conversion of the Gentiles, a fact not once mentioned in the article. If the Jews can pray for the conversion of Catholics – and others - why can Catholics not pray for the conversion of the Jews?
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Professor of the History and Theology of Judaism at Bard College, does not agree with the AP’s article. He says:

Israel prays for the gentiles, so other monotheists – the Catholic church included - have the right to do the same, and no one should feel offended… I do not see how in spirit or in intent these prayers differ from the one [revised by the Pope] under discussion…. The proselytizing prayers of Judaism and Christianity share an eschatological focus [view to the end of the world] and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. No more than Christianity and Islam take umbrage at the Israelite prayer should holy Israel object to the Catholic one.

Professor Neusner’s remarks are very true.

The prayer written by the Pope may be translated into English thus:

Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.

This comes directly out of the writings of Saint Paul.

It is difficult to see how this prayer hinders Jewish-Catholic dialogue since it contains nothing contrary to previous prayers and nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, despite what some have suggested. The remark by Philip Cunningham that the prayer in the Missal of Paul VI contains “no mention of Jews coming to faith in Jesus the Savior” is simply false.

If the Catholic Church cannot be allowed to pray for the conversion of people to the faith of Jesus Christ – whom she professes to be the Messiah – what kind of dialogue can there be? The dialogue that is asked for is not authentic theology but relativism, which says that all religions are equal. Such a position is neither authentically Jewish nor Catholic.

To pray for the conversion of people of other faiths is an act of great love because it is a desire for all people to come to the knowledge of the truth. The Catholic Church recognizes Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation and if she would not pray for the conversion of all peoples she would be denying her very faith. The Catholic Church takes most seriously the words of the Savior that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Illogic

I am all in favor of the use of logical arguments, especially in the political arena, but the logic has to flow naturally one to the next. Try this bit of logic from Gilbert Omenn of the University of Michigan:

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

Or, put another way:

If evolution occured, then smoking is bad and energy should conserved. If evolution did not occur, then smoking is good and energy should be wasted.

That seems to be quite a stretch and it seems to say that those who do not accept the theory of evolution (I wonder who's version of it he means) are simpletons and fools, which doesn't seem to follow, either.

The article contains a few other lapses in logic, as well, but I haven't time to go into those this morning.

I do not intend this post to turn into a debate about evolution or creationism, as if they were mutually exclusive, but simply as a way to put the great use of illogic running rampant in the media today.

Be careful of what you read, and THINK.

Those silly reporters

In his Reuters article "'Golden Compass' disappoints at box office," about the movie's less than expected weekend revenues, Dean Goodman writes:

Even though the film downplays the religious aspect, it has been savaged by such groups as the Catholic League and the U.S. Conference of Bishops

Until today I wasn't aware that "savage" could be used as a verb. Were you? I did check it out; the dictionary says it is. Now we know.

But more than that, what strikes me is how Goodman sets the Catholic League and the USCCB in the same camp regarding their toward the movie.

You might recall that the Catholic League called for a boycott of the film while the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcast gave the movie a decent review. This is hardly to sides of the same camp, something that New Line Cinema picked up on.

This reporter might want to doublecheck his facts the next time he writes such an article.

Another media blunder

Update: Creative Minority Report suggests additional reasons - together with headlines - for the liturgical color of vestments.

Update: The American Papist has some useful commentary regarding both the Reuters article and the Holy Father's comments.

This one from Philip Pullella of Reuters regarding the colors of liturgical vesture.

In his article, "Save the planet before it's too late, Pope urges," Pullella says:

"A decisive 'yes' is needed in decisions to safeguard creation as well as a strong commitment to reverse tendencies that risk leading to irreversible situations of degradation," the 80-year old Pope said in his homily.

Intentionally wearing green vestments, he spoke to a vast crowd of mostly young people sprawled over a massive hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Italy's Catholic Church marks it annual Save Creation Day. [more]

The Holy Father wouldn't have worn green vestments because, for example, Mass was celebrated during Ordinary Time, would he? Good grief... Talk about lousy journalism.

Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press (whose work we have previously criticized) does not mention the green vestments in her article, "Pope urges young to care for planet."

One more media failure

My letter to the editor was published in tonight's issue of the Effingham Daily News. It was given the peculiar title, "Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel."

I wondered about this for several minutes until I realized what happened.

At the top of all my letters I give the date and, if there is one, the name of the feast or memorial celebrated by the Church. I wrote the letter on the Memorial of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, who, of course, has nothing to do whatsover with the subject of the letter.

In the future I suppose I'll have to title my letters myself and leave no work to an editor. They simply will not inquire even the slightest into matters Catholic (or apparently even read letters from Catholics). And they say Catholics are arrogant. It's very irritating.

Another letter to the editor

An Associated Press article entitled “Other Christians” published in the 10 July 2007 issue of the Effingham Daily News claimed that the Vatican issued a document that said Protestant denominations “were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the ‘means of salvation.’”

The article quoted the document Dominus Iesus (Latin for “The Lord Jesus”) issued in 2000,rather than the one released Tuesday called “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church”. Even so, the quotation offered is neither accurate nor correct. (Dominus Iesus reaffirmed that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ and not through all of the world’s religions.)

The article is only partially correct and as a whole is quite misleading and false. The mainstream media has again proven itself utterly incapable of giving an accurate portrayal of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such a false portrayal of the Catholic Church is tolerated – and even encouraged – throughout society, yet a similar false representation of Jewish, Islamic, Protestant or Buddhist teaching is not. Anti-Catholicism remains, as the historian Philip Jenkins – himself a Protestant - notes, “the last acceptable prejudice" in America.

To the matter at hand: the Catholic Church does not recognize Protestant denominations as “Churches” because, as the document in question states:

[T]hese Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense (Response to the Fifth Question).

It is because the Protestant denominations have not maintained unity with Peter through his successor and because they do not have a valid priesthood or a valid Eucharist that they are called “ecclesial communities” and not “Churches.” Nowhere do any of the documents refer to them as “merely” ecclesial communities, as the Associated Press article indicates. Referring to Protestant denominations as ecclesial communities is not a pejorative description but rather a recognition of reality; they have not maintained the tradition of the Apostles.

Going back to the quotation given by the article from Dominus Iesus, an accurate, correct and full quotation would have read thus:

[T]hese separated Churches [Eastern Catholic Churches] and [ecclesial] communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (Dominus Iesus, 17 [emphasis mine]).

From this it is plain that the article was not at all correct in its primary claim. Rather than reporting the facts its reports falsehood and lies.

While the Catholic Church teaches that she has received from Christ the fullness of the means of salvation, she also recognizes that Christ’s salvific grace is present and at work in all who seek God with a sincere heart and clear conscience, properly formed.

What is more, the document issued on Tuesday reaffirmed “that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them” (Response to the Second Question).

Furthermore, it clarified the teaching of the Catholic Church in order to foster ecumenical dialogue by stating clearly the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church. The document has been well received by both the Russian Orthodox and the Anglican Communion (from Canterbury), as well as by many other others, contrary to the claims of the media.

Both Dominus Iesus and Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, together with commentary, are available on the web site of the Holy See (www.vatican.va) under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If you have questions about these documents I suggest you read them and not trust the media’s portrayal of them; the media has heretofore proven itself entirely unreliable.

The Effingham Daily News should be ashamed for publishing such a misleading and erroneous article and should apologize for the harm it has caused in the community.