« On the Family | Main | Food for Thought »
June 10, 2005
Second thoughts
A report that a beatification is being postponed because of the discovery of anti-Semitic writings
Father Leon Dehon (1843-1925) was to be put on the road to sainthood on April 24 thanks to his pioneering social and spiritual work. The ceremony was postponed, officially because of Pope John Paul’s death on April 2.
It has now emerged that an historian had found anti-Semitic writings by Dehon from the late 1800s and informed Church officials late in March. They told Vatican officials, including the influential Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The cardinal, who was later elected Pope Benedict on April 19, “was informed and was shocked,” French Bishops’ Conference spokeswoman Marie-Caroline de Marliave told Reuters.
“The issue is being studied now,” she said. Any decision to proceed with or drop the beatification “is up to Rome.”
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
This needn't mean no beatification, since there've been a lot of saints with rather anti-Semitic writings, but in today's world, it's rather difficult to say "We're beatifying him for the heroic virtue etc. even though he had some ideas that he picked up from his culture that weren't right." It would look like endorsing anti-Semitism.
Another reason why those 'canonize G.K. Chesterton' types should probably give it a rest. I love Chesterton as much as anyone, but besides the fact that I'm not entirely sure he qualifies as living a life of heroic virtue, there really are unpleasant anti-Semitic elements in his work. His fanciful suggestion that Jews should be marked by wearing different clothing was not *meant* the same way Hitler later used the star, but the idea that Jews weren't really *us* was at the bottom of a lot of Europeans' minds, even saintly ones.
Posted by: Eileen R at Jun 11, 2005 12:06:15 AM
Eileen:
"there really are unpleasant anti-Semitic elements in his work".
Please, a definition of that term and documentation for that remark.
Thanks.
Posted by: Chesterton fan at Jun 11, 2005 12:43:15 AM
from the article: "it seemed unlikely that a pope...would proceed with a beatification that Jews would consider an affront. 'A beatification like that would have damaged good and healthy dialogue with the Catholic Church and it is better to avoid such useless damage,' French Jewish community leader Haim Musicant told the Catholic daily La Croix."
Aside from the merits of this particular cause, is it appropriate to recognize sanctity based on what "Jews would consider an affront"? Jewish leaders would have been - and were - affronted by St. Paul. Had they had veto power then...imagine. And is it appropriate for the Jewish leader to comment at all on an internal Church matter, let alone to say what he did? (That "dialogue" would be "damaged" were the cause to proceed). Just what is "dialogue"? Does it mean we get to tell them what "affronts" us and what they better not do if they don't want to cause "damage"? Of course not; we don't want to do that. So what is the "dialogue" about and is it worth it? We can't even get them to live up to the deal they made with John Paul II 11 or 12 years ago when he recognized Israel; a lot of good that "dialogue" did.
Posted by: Len K. at Jun 11, 2005 1:52:50 AM
You can find anti-Semitic elements in Chesterton's writings; you can also find philo-semitic elements. Chesterton was a man of his times, and a level of anti-Jewish comments in public that we would find distateful was not that uncommon in his period. Anti-ethnic comments regarding many groups were a part of the give and take of popular discourse in the early twentieth century that we today would find repulsive, just as people living at that time would be shocked and repulsed by the obscenity, blasphemy and profanity that so often peppers our popular dialogues. For what it is worth, Chesterton, who died in 1936, viewed Hitler as a mortal danger to Europe and the Jews and attacked him and his regime incessantly.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jun 11, 2005 6:41:16 AM
If these writings are legit, his anti-semitism is markedly different from that of some Saints:
"With them, the passion for riches is a racial instinct
Particular Popes and Saints were not anti-semitic. They weren't hostile to Jews because they were semites. They were anti-Jewish. It was a religious hostility. But this citation goes beyond that, into racial dimensions.
Posted by: Jason at Jun 11, 2005 6:47:57 AM
French Catholicism has long been contaminated by an anti-Semitism that goes beyond the inevitable hostility of Church and Synagogue. Remember the Dreyfus affair.
This Catholic anti-Semitism contributed to the enthusiastic cooperation which the Vichy regime gave to the Nazi persecution of the Jews. The French government went beyond the orders of the Germans. If the Germans asked them to arrest all Jewish men, the Vichy police would arrest women and children too so they could all be deported to Auschwitz.
The poison of anti-Semitism has to be purged from the Church. The beatification of a recent figure who made such anti-Semitic statements would hinder this necessary purification. Can you imagine the legitimate furor if a German Pope canonized an anti-Semite, making excuses for the remarks?
Posted by: Lee Podles at Jun 11, 2005 7:19:34 AM
I agree with Lee. While it is true that if anti-Semitism was a bar to sainthood, the Church would have to purge its ranks of saints from past eras, it is nevertheless wholly imprudent to canonize in this time and place a Catholic who held these wicked views. This does not, of course, mean that God has kept Father Dehon out of heaven; only God and Father Dehon know that. But it does mean that the Church on Earth should not raise to the altar, after the Shoah, an otherwise pious and virtuous man whose work tragically includes the propagation of Jew hatred.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jun 11, 2005 7:36:40 AM
Just who has declared that making a statement against a Jewish person or a group of Jewish persons is one of the "crimes of the ages" and an activity which would disqualify one for sainthood?
If I were to write an article or a book on the Jewish members of the Bolshevik Politburo in the Soviet Union who probably were as responsible as anybody for the rise of the Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers ("Nazi") Party in Germany, would I be declared anathema and ineligible for being declared a saint? (There are a few million other reasons why I also would be ineligible, if the issue comes up).
Just as a point of information, while the Communist (Bolshevik) Party was always declared to be a "left wing dictatiorship", the Nazi Party has always been declared to be a "right wing dictatorship." But as you can see from their full, legal name, they were the "National Socialist German Workers Party." They were as leftish as the Commies, except they did not go for the confiscation of property. But the Nazi government probably controlled the economy of Germany nearly as much as did the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Ray in MN at Jun 11, 2005 7:37:04 AM
Ray, the communists were the extreme left, the Nazis the extreme right. You are applying American notions of left and right, and it just doesn't fit here. Both extremes are totalitarian, but their rationales are what mark them as of the left or of the right.
Anyway, why bring that up here? And what does the fact that some Bolsheviks were Jews have to do with anything?
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jun 11, 2005 8:02:32 AM
Except, of course, as an antecedent to "...and therefore you could certainly understand why Catholics harbored hatred against Jews." Never mind that Christian anti-Semitism predates Bolshevism by, oh, centuries.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jun 11, 2005 8:05:16 AM
It has always seemed to me that sins can be roughly broken down between those that are caused by "natural forces" working on our weakened human flesh and those that are caused by "demonic forces" working on our wounded spiritual nature.
It's an over-simplification, and surely the two are not exclusive categories, rather more like two ends of a continuum, with lots of overlap.
The sins of St. Augustine, in this oversimplification, are closer to the "natural" end of the spectrum. A natural and good human impulse has been perverted.
Those who victimize innocent children, the elderly, women in refugee camps, the helpless handicapped, are closer to the demonic variety of temptation. The "natural" or "fleshly" impulses don't seem to be driving the sin so much as "demonic" impulse of just enjoying having power over someone, or imposing suffering on them.
I suppose the underlying impulse is a kind of pride, enjoying power over those who have no recourse.
I have often felt that anti-semitism belongs on the demonic end of the spectrum. There's something about anti-semitism that on an intuitive level (meaning I can't explain it merely in rational terms) I find really troubling and unsettling for reasons that go beyond its terrible consequences, even the horror of the Holocaust.
This is not to say that those saints who held anti-semitic views are less worthy of sainthood. Saints are not "sinless"! And anyway, if you do something objectively wrong without knowing it is objectively wrong, your soul isn't marked with sin in the same way.
I don't know if this Frenchman hated Jews, or rather just accepted the views of his day without real hatred. But, hatred of Jews, and the lengths people will go in acting on that hatred, seems to me to have a supernatural signficance. Jesus was flesh of their flesh. Jesus lived his life among them as a Jew. Hatred of Jews is at least partly a hatred of Jesus. I think the demonic forces have lots of joy in spreading this sin.
Posted by: athanasius at Jun 11, 2005 8:49:53 AM
You have to remember also that the Nazis changed somewhat over time. There was a stronger "leftish"/"Workers Party" element early on, but much less so later on - the purge of the SA ("The Night of the Long Knives") was not unrelated to that. And whatever economic control there was in the Third Reich was subordinate to the Nationalist element of "National Socialism." Primarily nationalist collectivism/totalitarianism just isn't exactly the same thing as primarily economic collectivism/totalitarianism, whatever important similarities there may also be.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jun 11, 2005 8:50:42 AM
We need to be clear in our own minds.
No decree of the Church will effect (or prevent) the salvation of this man (or anybody else). Furthermore, canonization is not some kind of "reward" to the blessed which increases their delight at the Beatific Vision. Just saying that reveals how ridiculous it is.
Canonization is for the benefit of the Church Militant, not for the benefit of the saint. Particular people are held up officially to admiration, for intercession, for emulation, upon an official declaration that they displayed heroic virtue.
The cause of Junipero Serra here in California is problematic for some of the same reasons. Although Father Serra certainly tried to soften the blow of Spanish and Mexican occupation, nevertheless the plain fact of the matter is that the California Indians were reduced to slavery or near-slavery at the missions, and that many tribes were in effect exterminated. (This is admitted more or less candidly at San Antonio, which is again administered by Franciscans.)
Fathers Dehon and Serra were men of their times. Only God can judge their faults. But one wonders whether, given the new sensitivity to what Native Americans and Jews think, it is appropriate to put such men up for official admiration.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 11, 2005 9:20:59 AM
Anti-semitism pervaded the French Church in the 19th C. Even Lourdes was used to promote hatred of Jews. A leading Catholic of the day would be presumed to carry some taint of it unless proven otherwise. This candidate's remarks are not just hateful, he advocated repressive measures against Jews including restriction of employment and confinement to ghettos. These attitudes are perpetuated among the most extreme RadTrads by the French-inspired works of Fr. Denis Fahey, "Maurice Pinay's" PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH, and other choice offerings from Omni Publications, a current publisher of the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. As a Catholic daughter of Israel, I abominate them.
The newspaper account says that this cause had been closed on account of the candidate's anti-Semitism in 1952. His attitudes were well known in France. So who saw fit to revive the cause and why? To catch the rising wave of European anti-Semitism? And why would the late Pope approve this, given his warm feelings toward Jews? Was information witheld?
Yes, we'd had anti-Semitic saints in the past, including St. Louis IX and St. John Capistrano. One would think this would be an easy call, post-Holocaust, but the Church recently ignored anti-Semitic elements in Anna Catharina Emmerich--who made the blood libel--and beatified her. We should be most grateful that this cause was stopped in time. Oh, please, please, can we have the saint-making machine turned down? More time for in-depth consideration? A return of the Devil's Advocate? Dare we hope?
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jun 11, 2005 9:31:24 AM
Sandra, exactly.
By the way--I didn't realize you were friends with Gene Wolfe (I've been reading a lot of his non-fiction essays from Castle of Days, etc).
Posted by: John Farrell at Jun 11, 2005 10:48:02 AM
I have read in various places that the mere fact that the Jewish people have managed to live on, despite the terrible evils perpetrated against them through the centuries, is a grace from God that must not be ignored. The covenant between God and the Jews has not and will not be destroyed by the acts of men. The fact that the existence of Christianity, that the Catholic Church that holds Christianity's full Deposit of Faith, epitomizes and carries forth that covenant with a covenant of its own makes anti-semitism a stupid, stupid blasphemy. There is indeed, I think, an element of the occult--of the "smoke of Satan" in it. Hitler's plan to disappear all Jewish people would have broken all covenants and would have destroyed any reason for Christianity. All we have, ultimately, is the grace and mercy of God, and anti-semitic Christians are wickedly stupid in their self-mutilation.
We know so much now that we were ignorant of in earlier centuries: anti-semites who reveal themselves in writing should never be given honor by the Church.
Posted by: Wisconsinkathy at Jun 11, 2005 11:00:42 AM
Fr. Maximillian Kolbe's religious order published much anti-semitic material in
pre-war Poland. Should one be surprised if
many Poles were indifferent to the Holocaust
occuring amongst them?
Posted by: CB at Jun 11, 2005 11:02:48 AM
Saint Maximillian Kolbe's friary gave aid and refuge to 1500 Jewish refugees after the conquest of Poland in 1939. In Auschwitz the Saint befriended a 13 year old Jewish boy, shared his food with him, and restored the boy's faith in God.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jun 11, 2005 11:42:47 AM
In my personal view anti-Semites are lower than anit-Catholics & since I regard anti-Catholics as human slime you can do the math.
I can only pray my children will someday hate anti-Semitism more than I.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at Jun 11, 2005 12:18:09 PM
To look at this objectively, from a distance, what is the difference between this carelessly inexact expression of frustration "With them, the passion for riches is a racial instinct" and the following, from this thread:
"French Catholicism has long been contaminated by an anti-Semitism" (Lee Poodles)"Even Lourdes was used to promote hatred of Jews. A leading Catholic of the day would be presumed to carry some taint of it unless proven otherwise"(Sandra)"These attitudes are perpetuated among the most extreme RadTrads"(Sandra)"So who saw fit to revive the cause and why? To catch the rising wave of European anti-Semitism?"(Sandra, get a grip)??
ALL of them are tarring with a very wide brush.
Posted by: jtbf at Jun 11, 2005 1:48:53 PM
Rod Dreher says:
"And what does the fact that some Bolsheviks were Jews have to do with anything?"
Yet Rod Dreher agrees with Mr. Poodles, who says that the Vichy regime was anti-Semitic because they were Catholic.
One might then ask of Mr. Dreher and Mr. Poodles, "So what does the fact that some fascists were Catholic have to do with anything?"
Frankly, I don't think that the Jewish background of Bolsheviks has anything to do with their murderous acts. But I also don't think that the Catholic background of fascists has anything to do with their murderous acts either. Yet, for some reason it's OK to make the one causal connection and not OK to make the other.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 11, 2005 2:06:17 PM
"You can find anti-Semitic elements in Chesterton's writings"
I ask, along with Chestertonfan above, "give us some proof"! If you can't then enough of the "Chestorton said anti-Semitic things" meme please.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Jun 11, 2005 2:08:39 PM
>It is a fact that Judaism is an antichrist religion (read the Talmud some time), and any Catholic that isn't aware of that is in for big trouble.
I reply: I have read the Talmud & 99.99% of it doesn't deal with Christianity at all but is a compilation of arguments on how to practically apply the Law of Moses to any given situation.
The Talmud is mostly pastorial rather than theological.
Of course if your one of those Radtrad low lifes who believes the sleezy propoganda of Elizabeth Dillings then I can't help you.
If you were not Catholic you would with great ease fall for the writtings of Jack Chick.
To Call Judaism an "antichrist religion" is a revival of the condemned heresy of Marcion.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) at Jun 11, 2005 2:26:42 PM
Regarding Father Dehon, and considering that "race" was an intellectually acceptable identification in the 19th c. (as also among Jews - read Jewish Disraeli's grandiose claims, for just one example), would the statement
"With them, the passion for riches is a racial instinct"
be taken differently had it been:
"As a group, and in proportion to the general population, and as a sociological phenomenon, they are more driven to financial success and power, with less discernible overall restraints than are proclaimed and evinced in Christian teaching"?
Would the latter statement be untrue? Not according to sociological studies and observations written by Jews about themselves as a group.
Posted by: ASL at Jun 11, 2005 2:51:28 PM
""You can find anti-Semitic elements in Chesterton's writings"
I ask, along with Chestertonfan above, "give us some proof"! If you can't then enough of the "Chestorton said anti-Semitic things" meme please."
"For if the advantage of the ideal to the Jews is to gain the promised land, the advantage to the Gentiles is to get rid of the Jewish problem, and I do not see why we should obtain all their advantage and none of our own. Therefore I would leave as few Jews as possible in other established nations, and to these I would give a special position best described as privilege; some sort of self-governing enclave with special laws and exemptions; for instance, I would certainly excuse them from conscription, which I think a gross injustice in their case. [Footnote: Of course the privileged exile would also lose the rights of a native.] A Jew might be treated as respectfully as a foreign ambassador, but a foreign ambassador is a foreigner. Finally, I would give the same privileged position to all Jews everywhere, as an alternative policy to Zionism, if Zionism failed by the test I have named; the only true and the only tolerable test; if the Jews had not so much failed as peasants as succeeded as capitalists."
Chesterton, The New Jerusalem, page 250. Chesterton supported Zionism in hopes that it would solve the "Jewish problem". I do not believe that Chesterton was anti-Semitic, but, as in the above passage, his writings did contain anti-Semitic elements.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jun 11, 2005 3:17:22 PM
