Fools to be Pitied

A few years ago, when I was in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, the process for converting to Catholicism), I researched modern anti-Catholicism, and posted this article for a blog called Sum, Ergo Cogito. But it was such a good one, that I thought it'd be a good idea to disseminate it again for my GMM audience, with a few touch ups.

... As a convert , I've occasionally looked at the Protestant church, and I find that anti-Catholicism is still rampant. Not only are there the secular humanists who criticze us for our attempts at moral guidance, there are Protestant preachers who think they're right and everone else is wrong. Then I find various preachers get really mean about their views towards Catholics, and manage to make Martin Luther look like a petulant child. Some are so hateful towards the Church, that it's very tempting to hate them back. But no. Instead, I what Mr. T said in Rocky III, "I don't hate him, I pity the fool!" Towards those supposed Christians who spew such hatred against Catholics, the only proper Christian attitude should be pity, since hatred is only self-destructive. So here are a list of such fools.

Fools to be Pitied
---------------------
-Jack Chick: This cartoonist loves to libel the Church in his so-called Chick's Tracts. It would be exhausting to list all his factual errors, lies, and occasional blasphemies. Here's a link to a rebuttal. (http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp)









- Fred Phelps: Leader of the Westboro Baptist Church; see this wikipedia article to see their/his views (http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Racial_and_Political_Stances_of_Westboro_Baptist_Church) He calls us mean, despite the fact that he severely beat his children, was such a despicable lawyer that he was disbarred, and is so generally hateful that even conservative Baptist churches denounce him. Oh, yeah, and he has the awful taste of having his little hate rallies at the funerals of soldiers killed in action, because he preaches that soldiers killed are God's punishment on America for not burning homosexuals at the stake. For him, compassion is something that occurs to other people; I like to call those other people Christians.

-Texe Marrs: Preacher and conspiracy theorist who is both anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.

-Tony Alamo: Just look at his webpage on the Catholic Church. http://www.alamoministries.com/content/english/antichrist_lit_.htm If it doesn't just make you laugh, it'll make you spit blood. But then, just look at his criminal record. The first time I wrote this, he was already busted for tax evasion (for which he blames the Vatican; seriously, the Holy See has better things to do than deal with you, Tony). But now, he has been convicted on charges of sex abuse! (Alamo guilt of sex Crimes)
Long story shortened, he's not a man to take seriously. He changed his name to "Tony Alamo", for pete's sake!




Then there are the Bob Jones', Jimmy Swaggart, and other evangelists, whose hypocrisies are so infamous it isn't worth mentioning.

Just remember, however virulent they might get, they are, above all, just fools that few people take that seriously. I remember an episode of MASH, where the camp's chaplain Father Mulcahy says, "We're all God's children. Some of us are more childish than others." Very true, and all we can do is pray that they grow up.

And so, I'll end this posting with a Mr. T-esque remark.

"I pity the fool who attacks the Catholic Church"

The Pope and Richard Williamson

For those who don't know, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in the past couple weeks has lifted the excommunication of four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X. This was done in the hopes of rehabilitating those schismatic bishops and bringing them back into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church.
But now as a result of his act of reconciliation with these bishops, His Holiness faces criticism and condemnation on the part of his own native homeland and his German brethren. Why? Because one of these renegade bishops, Richard Williamson, has publicly stated his disbelief in the Holocaust as historians accept it. He does not deny the Holocaust wholesale, but he believes that was only 300,000 Jews who perished (5% of the actual estimate), and denies the existence of the gas chambers.
Let me begin by saying that I accept the facts and figures of the Holocaust, and that I join my Jewish friends in mourning on Yom Hashoah. I find it offensive and ignorant when someone even tries to mitigate the impact of the Holocaust; Richard Williamson should be corrected and reprimanded for his ignorant remarks about a great tragedy wherein not only Jews were killed, but also Roma, Poles, Soviets, and devout Christians of many denominations who stood against the tyranny of the Nazis. Bishop Williamson should be reminded of the martyrs created by Nazi cruelty, including Saints Maximillian Kolbe and Teresa Benedicta of the Cross.
That being said, I wish that people would not condemn the Pope for lifting Williamson's excommunication. First of all, he was not excommunicated for denying the Holocaust (though I wouldn't blame anyone for doing so). His excommunication in June/July of 1988 was for being consecrated a bishop along with three others by Archbishop Lefebvre, without Vatican approval. For those who don't know, being consecrated a bishop, or being ordained as a priest without proper approval incurs motu propria excommunication in the Catholic Church. That means that the excommunication is automatic when the offense takes place; no official declaration is necessary, the second they accepted consecration, they were out. Other offenses also incur motu propria excommunication, such as procuring or aiding an abortion, or desecrating the Eucharist. Still, that the illicit conseration was the reason for Williamson's excommunication, not for comments on the Holocaust.
The reason the Pope lifted Williamson's excommunication is that Williamson and the three other renegade bishops sent a message to Catholic officials expressing a desire to rejoin the Church. These four bishops are leaders of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, a tradionalist group that desires to practice Catholicism as it was before the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. This council, also known as Vatican II, allowed for Mass to be said in vernacular languages instead of Latin, among many other changes in the Church. Some thought the changes of Vatican II were too radical, even heretical, leading to some outright breaks with the Roman Catholic Church. Some have even elected their own anti-popes. However, Pope Benedict XVI has recently extended an olive branch to all Traditionalist Catholics, both in and out of communion with the Church. He first did this by allowing lay persons to band together and request Tridentine (traditional Latin) Masses at their Churches. Now, he is trying to welcome back the schismatics, one step at a time. By lifting the the 1988 excommunications, he is sending a message that strict Traditionalists are welcome in the Catholic Church.
My point is that you can criticisze Bishop Williamson for his ignorant remarks all you want, and I will join you. You can encourage the Pope to reprimand him, and to correct his error. But it is unfair to criticize His Holiness for trying to reconcile Williamson because of a matter unrelated to his excommunication. By allowing the renegade bishop back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict is not endorsing his Holocaust denial. I'm sure the reconciliation process, of which the lifting of excommunication is only the first step, will include a degree of reeducation of Williamson and his colleagues in matters of both faith and history.

Gloria Christo et Vivat Papa!

Russia: Imperialist Hypocrites? Who would ever think?

The last five days have been rather turbulent for the small Caucasian state of Georgia. What few people realize is that this is an extension of Georgia's problems since the nation gained independence after the Cold War.

You see, two northern regions of Georgia have considerable demographic differences. Abkazia in the northwest is populated by an ethnic group known as the Abkhaz, who in 1992 staged an uprising to create the Republic of Abkhazia, at the same time cleansing the region of Georgian and other minorities. Yes, it's exactly as it sounds. Refugees, murder, and suchlike. The other region is South Ossetia, which has a group known as Ossetians. They also rebelled in 1992 creating their own de facto republic. As a result of thse coups the international community (including Russia at the time) agreed to an embargo on Abkhazia. Needless to say, no government has recognized either region as a sovereign nation.

Fast forward to this year. In May, Russia announced that it was withdrawing from the economic santions that the EU proposed against Abkhazia. This one of the first steps in potentially recognizing the rogue state, and at the same time possibly recognizing South Ossetia. Then it became apparent that Russia had been helping the Abkhaz government in shooting down Georgian spy drones. At the same time South Ossetia had publicly announced it's intent to reunite with North Ossetia, which essentially means that they intend to become part of Russia.

With the prospect of irreparably losing two regions, with Russian support, it seems rational that Georgia would want to quickly put down the rebellions and reintegrate Abkhazia and South Ossetia. So on August 8, Georgian forces entered South Ossetia, and immediately clashed with Russian "peacekeeping" forces. The violence continues.....

But that's only the military aspect of this conflict. The other side is Russia's arrogance and hypocrisy. In the ensuing peace talks between UN representatives and the opposing sides have revealed that Russia not only wants Georgia out of Ossetia, they also want Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili out of office. I can't imagine what makes Russia think that it can make such demands on a sovereign nation, but Russia's newfound imperialist colors are now flying for all to see. In addition, Russia refuses to agree to a UN truce because the truce did not forbid Georgia from using force against separatists (See here).

Now that last part just screams hypocrisy. If you don't know what I'm thinking of, take a look at this map.



Situated on Georgia's northwest border lies a little region known as Chechnya. To this day, the Russians are waging a rather nasty war to crush the separatists who have found their own little rogue republic. The difference between this conflict and that between Georgia and Ossetia is that Russians don't have to fight both ethnic insurgents and some meddling third party. For the most part, the outside world has recognized the Chechnya conflict as between the Chechens and the Russians. And certainly, the Russians don't shy away from military force in trying to keep Chechnya in the fold of Mother Russia.

For the purpose of this entry, I will not take sides as to whether Abkhazia, South Ossetia, or Chechnya should be independent. My point is that Russia wants to have its way in the Caucasus, with no regard to the sovereign rights of Georgia. With it's troops in regions that are de jure Georgian territory, Russia is clearly the aggressor in this conflict. The world must recognize this, and treat the Russians as such at any negotiations.