I don’t quite follow the line that the about anti-semitism being acceptable before Vatican 2.
For one, just because the church didn’t expressly condemn it, didn’t mean it condoned it. I think would require a longer and more in depth argument. And for two, that doesn’t mean that these people are anti-Semitic. Again, much more evidence woul…
I don’t quite follow the line that the about anti-semitism being acceptable before Vatican 2.
For one, just because the church didn’t expressly condemn it, didn’t mean it condoned it. I think would require a longer and more in depth argument. And for two, that doesn’t mean that these people are anti-Semitic. Again, much more evidence would need to be shown. From my understanding of this group, that is not even on their radar.
The line, frankly, seems like a snide aside and a tip of the hand from the neutral journalist position. It seems meant to condemn a group for at anti-semitism without proving it exists.
Catholics were all over the place during WWII with some supporting and some opposed to the Nazi's. Hitler was raised Catholic but left the church. Some priests fought for their religion bravely and were executed, others simply looked the other way.
Frankly, it was the same in the USA. We were taught in history class that we were the glorious saviors of the world in WW II but boatloads of Jews were sent back to Germany and certain death before we entered the war.
As our society continues to splinter into left and right and people sort themselves into neighborhoods with like-minded people, there's no reason to think the same won't happen with religion. Am betting in 20 years there will be "Conservative Catholics" and "Reform Catholics"
Yes her comment was gratuitous and misplaced. Of course some Jews wanted Jesus dead. And they got their way. But most did not. So, Catholicism has never been anti-semitic, per se; only some members (much like some Jews are / were anti-Christian). It was a remark showing likely her failure to grasp Christianity and its history, mostly good but sometimes bad.
The church was extremely antisemitic for most of its existence, if not as a matter of canon policy, then of general European antisemitism. The Spanish Inquisition was but one of the more horrifying examples.
However, any organization is made up of individuals, and there are always those who are decent and compassionate people who oppose the evil humans inflict on other humans.
The Spanish Inquisition targeted heretics, not Jews, unless they were "conversos" who secretly practiced Judaism while pretending to be Catholic. Not saying things were great then, but Jews who did not convert were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
Jews absolutely were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition. Read the secular history books that don’t have an axe to grind. And I’m a Catholic saying that.
That might lead someone to think that Jews who did not choose to convert were then left alone to practice their religion freely...which was absolutely NOT the case.
But I do agree that the references were out of place and detracted from the article. The general tone was one of sneering condescension. I normally love Suzy’s articles, but this one was a fail.
I'm glad not to be the only one that calls out Suzy for that sort of pseudo-"journalism" that injects personal prejudices into articles in a really annoying and, frankly, transparently juvenile way.
I wonder if she feels obligated to mention it—tosses it like a bone—to avoid flack from the anti-Christian left for failing to mention one of their "proofs" that devout people are actually just bigots who use religion to cloak their hate...?
I don’t quite follow the line that the about anti-semitism being acceptable before Vatican 2.
For one, just because the church didn’t expressly condemn it, didn’t mean it condoned it. I think would require a longer and more in depth argument. And for two, that doesn’t mean that these people are anti-Semitic. Again, much more evidence would need to be shown. From my understanding of this group, that is not even on their radar.
The line, frankly, seems like a snide aside and a tip of the hand from the neutral journalist position. It seems meant to condemn a group for at anti-semitism without proving it exists.
Catholics were all over the place during WWII with some supporting and some opposed to the Nazi's. Hitler was raised Catholic but left the church. Some priests fought for their religion bravely and were executed, others simply looked the other way.
Frankly, it was the same in the USA. We were taught in history class that we were the glorious saviors of the world in WW II but boatloads of Jews were sent back to Germany and certain death before we entered the war.
As our society continues to splinter into left and right and people sort themselves into neighborhoods with like-minded people, there's no reason to think the same won't happen with religion. Am betting in 20 years there will be "Conservative Catholics" and "Reform Catholics"
Yes her comment was gratuitous and misplaced. Of course some Jews wanted Jesus dead. And they got their way. But most did not. So, Catholicism has never been anti-semitic, per se; only some members (much like some Jews are / were anti-Christian). It was a remark showing likely her failure to grasp Christianity and its history, mostly good but sometimes bad.
The church was extremely antisemitic for most of its existence, if not as a matter of canon policy, then of general European antisemitism. The Spanish Inquisition was but one of the more horrifying examples.
However, any organization is made up of individuals, and there are always those who are decent and compassionate people who oppose the evil humans inflict on other humans.
The Spanish Inquisition targeted heretics, not Jews, unless they were "conversos" who secretly practiced Judaism while pretending to be Catholic. Not saying things were great then, but Jews who did not convert were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
Jews absolutely were persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition. Read the secular history books that don’t have an axe to grind. And I’m a Catholic saying that.
That might lead someone to think that Jews who did not choose to convert were then left alone to practice their religion freely...which was absolutely NOT the case.
But I do agree that the references were out of place and detracted from the article. The general tone was one of sneering condescension. I normally love Suzy’s articles, but this one was a fail.
Most of Suzy’s articles end on a sneering, condescending note, tbh.
Total fail
I'm glad not to be the only one that calls out Suzy for that sort of pseudo-"journalism" that injects personal prejudices into articles in a really annoying and, frankly, transparently juvenile way.
I wonder if she feels obligated to mention it—tosses it like a bone—to avoid flack from the anti-Christian left for failing to mention one of their "proofs" that devout people are actually just bigots who use religion to cloak their hate...?
I felt the same way. It was unnecessary.