A controversy has erupted over the request by the Rabbi of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitch, that Pope Benedict XVI take off his cross before a visit to the wall in May. Rabinovitch stated “My position is that it is not fitting to enter the Western Wall area with religious symbols, including a cross. I feel the same way about a Jew putting on a tallit and phylacteries and going into a church.”
Actually, asking someone to remove a cross is more like asking them remove yamaka in a church, which would be an outrageous demand. As someone raised as a Catholic, I would also never ask a Jewish person to remove a tallit or phylacteries.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II prayed at the Western Wall without removing his cross. Rabinovitch has made headlines in recent years by blocking clergy wearing crosses.
In November 2007, he blocked a group of Austrian bishops led by the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, stating that “crosses are a symbol that hurt Jewish feelings.” That seems less of a view of religion than prejudice. I am married to a Jewish woman as is one of my brothers and they clearly do not view crosses in such a way. I would view a Jewish person praying in a church to be a sign of respect and interfaith connection.
It seems to me that the symbol of intolerance in this controversy is Rabbi Rabinovitz as when he barred access in May 2008 to a group of Irish prelates from both Catholic and Protestant churches. The Rabbi has converted a symbol of faith and tolerance into a place of exclusion and prejudice. I would be interested in hearing particularly from our Jewish bloggers as to whether Rabbi Rabinovitz’s views are shared by the mainstream of the Jewish community.
The politics of the wall has been marred in past years by attacks on Jewish women who seek to hold prayer sessions at the wall, here and here and here.
For the full story, click here
Gregory,
As amusing as I find your sermons, surely you realize that the rest of us have absolutely no obligation to live by your beliefs.
If you want to judge by words and not deeds, that’s your prerogative. However, I’m willing to bet if I tried to feed you that line about any person or other organization, you’d call it what it is: Absurd.
Outbreaks against the Church are due to the Church’s repeated bad actions.
As there are bad citizens in our country, there invariably are bad priests in the Church, yes even some bad Bishops. In reality the vast majority of priests have been men of moderate and self-sacrificing lives. I admit the sinfulness on the part of some priests may have been a contributing factor towards the discontentment of some people. But the chief cause of their discontent lies in the very persons of the disaffected. The good man is saddened by the sight of any disedifying example. It is the evil man who rejoices in it, and makes it the excuse to do still more harm to the Church. Outbreaks against the Church are due to the efforts of and propaganda of professed enemies of God and of all religion, and to the apathy or even the bitterness of ignorant and ill-disposed memebers of the Church, who are only to eager to abandon the restraints of their religion.
The Church can and will be judged by it’s actions and by any person of conscience. You don’t like it? Too bad. Don’t support an organization that REGULARLY hides pedophiles.
It would undoubtedly be to the great advantage of the Church were all priests saintly men, though even in that case there is no guarantee that all Catholics would be equally submissive to the directions of those angelic priests devoid of sin. Yet it would not really be ideal for the Church to only have angelic priests. We must face the realities of life, and the essential frailities of human nature. The only way in which all priests could be rendered angelic always would be for God to render them either absolutely immune from all temptations or incapable of yielding to temptation. But surely, even though one is a priest, he should have to meet his own temptations just as any other man, and should be capable of losing his soul as well as saving it. It is not ideal that man should have a free pass ticket to heaven just because he has been ordained a priest. Priests are subject to the same laws of virtue as well as other men. They have to fight for it, and resist the temptations of life itself and all that carries with it. And on the law of averages, it is to be expected that some will fail, even whilst some fight there way to the heights of holiness. But the Catholic remains ever the same, whatever be the variations in the personal holiness of her priests. We cannot say that the Catholic Church is right when we meet a saintly priest, and then say that the same Church is wrong when we meet a careless priest. An unworthy priest may not practice what he preaches, but at least he will not dare to preach what he practices, in those matters at least where he falls short of Christian virtue. And the Church must be judged by those who live up to her teachings, not by those who do not.
Mike and Bob,
The only title I claim is greenest icon.
For the record.
Our Lord predicted the advent of His Church saying, “I must preach the kingdom of God, for therefore am I sent”. Luke IV,43. He called twelve Apostles, distinct from the rulers of the synagogue, and appointed them as teachers and rulers in His Church. ‘Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”, He said, “And behold I am with you all days even unto the end of the world”. Matt.XXVIII., 20. He constituted Peter as head. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven”. MattXVI.,18. That kingdom was to be a visible kingdom-as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. However Christ planted a seed which was to develop. The kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds, but which grows into a great tree. But it is enough to say that Christ established a Church, prescribed it’s essential constitution of teachers and taught rulers and subjects. “Teach what I have taught you. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven-make what further legislation you deem necessary. The gates of hell will not prevail against my Church- I will be with it all days to the end”. Such is the message of Christ to the Apostles. Now the only Church which has been all days in the world since Christ is the Catholic Church, and if he did not establish that Church, He established none. If that Church failed than the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s Church, and He has not been with her all days since His time until now. The Catholic Church alone has the essential constitution prescribed by Christ, and alone behaves as if possessing the magisterial, sanctifying and disciplinary authority, He conferred upon His Church. There are essential differences insofar as the grown tree differs from the seed, but the development is in full accordance with the nature and principles of the seed. And Christ knew that just such a tree as the catholic church is today, would develop from the seed he planted.
Mike,
Did you notice how the mere thought of Bleep cleared the palate, so to speak, for abstract analysis?
And yes, I agree, there is a unique Zen that flows with Bleep.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob,
Contrary to popular opinion and in spite of Buddha’s claims to the title, you are the resident mystic of JT’s Merry Band.
However, I thought the planet was Zocor or Crestor, rather than Zelcor, but age has been affecting my memory of late. As far as ME discussions the result is usually blah, blah, blah, rather than bleep, bleep. just thought you should know.
Mike
“Saint Thomas a Becket”
Gregory,
loved the movie and thought it was Burton’s best role other than as “George” in Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf
Mike,
Remember Josie & The Pussy Cats in Outer Space?
Well, I find that a great ice breaker in discussing Mid East problems is to recall that Melody’s pet space alien, Bleep, came from the planet Zelcor.
‘Bleep Bleep’,
Bob
Thanks for the kind words Mike. I sincerely appreciate that.
Sounds like Robert has been to one too many ‘Forum’ seminars
where “‘Understanding’ is the booby prize.”
By the way, nobody EVER asks to be raised Catholic… 😉
Our Lord states that in the Church there is wheat and chaff, good members and bad members. One must distinguish from the two. The Church is infallible when it teaches on faith and morals, not anything else. Our Lord vouchsafed the Church from the beginning, he said “I will be with you all days even unto the consumation of the world”, and ” The gates of hell shall not prevail against you”. My Church has been buffeted by many storms of controversy, heresy and yes even bad priests, but let us not forget the exemplary models of Christianity either. The litany of Saints is very long and full of many men and women of heroic spiritual stature. Saint Thomas a Becket, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, all Holy Martyrs of England and Wales. These are all members of the Church Triumphant in Heaven who continue to pray for us sinners here on earth in our own titanic spiritual struggle against the temptations and snares of the evil one. Praised be Jesus Christ now and forever!
Mike:
Ok, no more Mr. Niceguy!!
Mespo,
I wish you would be more forthright in you opinions and stop holding back.
“Because someone doesn’t agree with you does not mean they are trying to score points. You could pick up the ball and discuss it.”
Doglover,
Picking up the ball and discussing it with you would mean my then giving you a litany of Israeli grievances, which you would then respond to with a further litany of grievances from the other side. To what point? I make the assumption that you are informed and knowledgeable in forming your point of view, give me at least the same credit and in the end then all we would be doing is talking at each other. That debate would not only be a bore for me, but for the other well-informed people on this site reading it, who no doubt have made up their own minds about the conflict.
However, if what I contend is true and you are only trying to score points in debate, then from your perspective it would be fruitful to expose your ideas to others and argue your case so to speak. Since I believe that my highly moderate viewpoint, for this topic at least, would put me at a disadvantage in that type of discussion I would be forced to counter your “truths” with my own “truths” and thus stay on the merry-go-round of meaningless debate.
“I answered it rhetorically because that is the argument one always hears”
Yes it is a question often asked, but noticeably seldom answered by those who feel the Israeli’s acted badly in Gaza, which incidentally I had already admitted. You chose to avoid answering it because to do so would have required you to either admit that there had been some provocation for the Israeli “overreaction” thus admitting there are two sides to this story, or adopt the position that since Israel is an “illegal” state all “provocations” are justified in opposing it. Both would be legitimate viewpoints, but many discussing this sad situation choose to avoid direct honesty as to their feelings for a variety of rhetorical reasons.
“You said you are Jewish so you perhaps have skin in the game. I don’t. I do have history with the region, however.”
I categorically stated that I am Jewish and I’ve also delineated my “skin in the game” as you put it. You, however,
also apparently have “some skin in the game” having stated that you have been to Gaza and having expressed opinions on Israeli actions. The assumption on your part, however, that by dint of being Jewish one has “skin in the game” is a fantasy. One either cares or doesn’t despite their ethnic background. I happen to care and I’ve stated my reasons throughout many comments at this site.
Robert Wales, PhD:
“I am trying to put into this thread the basic needs of humanity for all of us, food, water, shelter, the right to live where our forefathers did in peace, the right to practice our culture & beliefs.,.
The spiritual experience that I m attemtping to relate here, I believe, transcends words. Words become paradoxical and lock us into an identification with the mind and the words themselves frequently lead to violence.”
*************
It is indeed rare to find a pedantic truism coupled with such an absurd proposition. While every person I know accepts the premise that basic needs of humanity should be met and people should be free to belief as they choose so long as those beliefs do not intrude upon the prerogatives of their neighbors, I am aware of no one who thinks that the system of words guaranteeing those ideals in the form of law are paradoxical. Indeed, most people feel those mere “words,” are the fundamental reason we have order. The paradox is how any thinking person could equate a disdain for “words” with the goals of our forefathers, whose sentiments we know about precisely and solely because of the use of “words.”
Gregory:
“Our Physician is Jesus Christ.”
************
Which forces one to ask if He abandoned the patients during those decades of child raping by priestly “interns,” and then the cover up of the crimes by the Church hierarchy in a massive shell game. I also wonder if the victims of such abuse feel “healed” by their institutionalization at the hands of the Church. And if the “sickness” we feel is “sin,” then I say to you what Luke said: “Physician heal thyself.”
All roads lead to Rome. Rome is the seat of Christendom. The Catholic Church is the largest single religious denomination in this country. Every year the church continues to grow in number, it always grows. The Catholic church is a huge spiritual hospital, and the patients in this hospital are the churchmemebers. The sickness we suffer from is sin and the medicine we receive are the sacraments, which give life to the soul. Our Physician is Jesus Christ