Holocult Witch Hunt

To:-- International Herald Tribune

Re:-- The Hounding of Bishop Williamson for having dared to question received facts.

James Russell is correct. Williamson's opinons raised issues of history and politics not faith and morals, which is the Church's province. An in depth article discussing the distinction was published on January 25th at the http://woodchipgazette.blogspot.com

What is really being perpetrated is a "Holocult" to be backed by the compulsion of law and mandated as an article of faith. If the Church caves in the image of a "burnt offering" will replace that of the Crucifixion on Catholic alters -- in total contradiction of Mark 12:33 (love of man is worth more than all holocausts).

This Holocult has nothing to do with entirely legitimate theological explorations into the implications of the catastrophic experience of European Jewry in the World War. As Hebrew University professor Y. Leibowitz, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atmon and others Jews have pointed out, the perpetuation of this cult is simply a political and cultural power grab -- a way of intimidating and persecuting people who criticise Israel or don't support a Zionist agenda.

What could be more convenient and ludicrous than persecuting an obscure schismatic bishop for neo-heresy in the very month that Israel is under investigation for actual war crimes and violations of humanitarian law?

Like all cults, this one ultimately rests on sand. On the day the story broke the New York Times reported that Williamson "said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers." [ here ] The world press followed suit. But no historian or court has ever declared that six million Jews were gassed.

Williamson is no historian, but the history is never as clear cut as the cultists would have us believe. The Jewish historian Raul Hilberg, acknowledging the extreme complexity and difficulty at arriving at accurate estimates, put the total death rate at 5.1 million from all causes. Justice Gray's judgement in Irving v Lipstadt (2001) concluded that there was no "clear" documentary evidence of killing gas chambers at Auschwitz, although he felt there was a cumulative circumstantial evidence that some substantial number had been gassed. The extinction of European Jews is in fact a very complex topic, and even the "official" accounts have been revised periodically. But the advantage of any cult is that it simplifies complexity into a taboo, suspends critical thinking and allows people to be hounded for harboring "outrageous" and "unacceptable" doubts.

In addition to the Holocult, there is a clear and unmistakable media bias against Pope Benedict and through him the Church itself. It is routinely insinuated that he was a Nazi, that he alienated Muslims, and that he equated gays with ecological disasters. None of this is true. It is clear that the people who scribble these falsehoods know nothing but documdrama mis-truths about conditions in Nazi Germany, never read the Regensburg Address, ignored the ultimate and very positive Muslim response and in the case of the Popes curial address this December, reported as positive fact a confabulated interpretation of something that was never said.

But all is not lost. The Spirit of St. James will not sleep forever.


Links
http://svtplay.se/v/1413831/webbextra_langre_intervju_med_williamson
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1384)
http://www.fisheaters.com/jewsvaticanii.html
hosted by: James C. Russell, New York / USA — 09 February 2009

.

A Stewpot of Loathing & Lies

To:-- Socialist Worker.Org

Re:-- A Screed by Eamonn McCann stewing up a pot of loathing and lies about Pope Benedict

I am a catholic AND a socialist, and I am not in the least dismayed by Pope Benedict's efforts to end a schism within the Church. I am, however, nauseated and angered by the garbage and spleen spewed out by putative "leftists" like Eamonn McCann in what is evidently a neurotic and obsessional hatred of the Church. Let's get a couple of things straight.

1. Benedict did not rehabilitate Williamson "despite his denial of the Holocaust" -- that is a blatant reportorial falsehood. He lifted a pre-existing excommunication (based on liturgical issues) against four bishops of the schismatic Society of St. Pius. The Pope did so without making inquiry into the personal political or historical opinions of any of the four. "Despite" is a lie.

2. I hadn't thought that the internal religious affairs of the Church were a matter of concern to socialists or anyone else who is not Catholic. But apparently the same crowd that raises howls of indignation at the Index or at the trial of Galileo, now wants the Roman Curia to go about making inquiry into who believes what about the cause of Katrina, or the causes and consequences of the genocide of European Jewry. Why stop there? Why not have the Pope inquire as to person's beliefs about the Armenian Holocaust (which Abe Foxman vehemently insisted was not a "holocaust"). Why not have the Roman Curia inquire as to who denies the English Holocaust of the Irish? The fact is that the Church is a big tent. People are in it or out of it based on limited credal matters of faith, not their personal opinons about a myriad of other topics.

3. I hadn't thought that some inane knee jerk incantation about so-called "holocaust denial" would have warranted reproduction in this forum. No small number of commentators, including Jews like Gilad Atmon, Norman Finklestein, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, have noted the cultivated metamorphosis of an historical tragedy into a theologico-political cult for the advancement of Zionist aims. "Holocaust" is not an historical description of anything, but a liturgical term lifted from the Old Testament referring to sacrifices of atonement (See e.g. Lev. 5:10; Mark 12:33) It has been converted into a label for a vast conjury of actual events the formed and coalesced into Nazi genocide against various groups. In that way a very complex matter is simplified into a spuriously singular "fact" which is then turned into a taboo used to hound and bludgeon people.

4. Banging the taboo against Williamson, the august and "liberal" New York Times shrieked that Williamson had the temerity to "deny that six million Jews died in Nazi gas chambers." Oh? Six million were gassed? Is this non-revisionism upwards? No one has ever claimed that six million Jews were gassed except the lynch mobs at the Times and, not doubt, Ellie Wiesel. Upping the ante, and banging the taboo against Benedict, the political hacks that call themselves a government in Germany lambasted the Pope as an "embarrassment" while -- always affirming The Holocaust -- they supported, applauded and stood 100% behind Israel's phosphorizing, DIME bombing, blasting, slaughter and starvation of Gaza. Who's the "embarrassment here" comrade Socialist Worker?

5. The revisionist studies Willamson relied on are, in my opinion, inaccurate. But if anyone thinks the issue is "simple" or "obvious" he or she should read what Raul Hilberg had to say about the difficulties in computing the numbers of fatalities and Justice Gray's opinion in Irving v. Lipstadt acknowledging the lack of "clear" and unimpeachable evidence of kiling gas chambers at Auschwitz. Whatever Williamson believes about this or any other matter is subject to debate on the merits; but debate on the merits is not what this is about.

6. What this is about is hatchet jobbing, and stirring up a demagogic stew of hate as is more than evident McCann's digression from "Holocaust Denial" to the Church's views about gays, to the coverups of the pedophilia scandal, to "abetting an onslaught on children" to abortion to the Pope's alleged insulting of other religions in the Regensburg Addresss. McCann has evidently not read the address (as I have) and would have no clue what Benedict was talking about if he did. Mc Cann is also unaware that the address was so "hateful" it inspired an unprecedented and very favorable conjoined inter-Muslim response. But the Pope's success in reaching out to the Muslim world, would embarrass McCann's screed. None of the issues he evokes are seriously discussed, they are just tossed into the fetid stew in the way of all inciters and rabble rousers.

This piece of crap does not belong on your site; and it is also time that people on the Left get past a knee jerk and obsessional hatred of the Catholic Church. Like any institution made of humans, the Church has done good things, stupid things and bad things. It is time for progressives and socialists to look for and at that part of the Church which is their ally and to read what Benedict has actually written to see the extent to which he is a very strong critic of the unjust system we live under.

.

Subverting the Crucifixion

To a person of high station:

Your Eminence,

... I am writing out of concern for the Holy Father and for Mother Church arising in connection with the furore over Bishop Williamson’s now notorious remarks. These have given rise to a controversy which arises at the juncture of the political and theological, the latter aspect of which warrants Your Eminence’s attention.

I want, first of all, to express my support for the Pope and for the labours he has undertaken. I have read his encyclicals and a number of his addresses. From one who has studied his country’s history, philosophy and music, His Holiness most certainly is not an “embarrassment” to Germany. I hope he is aware that there are many of us who emphatically reject imputations to the contrary.

I want, above all, to express my concern for the integrity of our Faith the absolute core of which is the Crucifixion which is also the fundament of our Christian Civilization. The infuriated demand, accompanied by extraordinary pressure and veiled calumnies, that the Church condemn and force recantation of something known as “Holocaust Denial” sets an extremely dangerous precedent which ought to be resisted. To bring the Church’s authority and magisterium to bear on what is, at bottom, an historical event affecting a part of humanity, ipso facto raises that event to the level of faith and morals and thereby tends to equate it with or eclipse the central Divine Act of our faith which represents and redeems all mankind’s suffering.

The demands being made by the members of the German Government and by various self-appointed Jewish Groups are untenable for the reasons I shall outline in brief.

1. The decision to reconcile with the schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, is an internal Church matter that is no outsider’s business whatsoever, and certainly no business of the Jewish political establishment. That is evident and in need of no further discussion.

2. The personal opinions of any member of the Church with respect to historical accounts of human events is also not a subject for official clerical inquiry or censure. It is preposterous to think that the Church should make inquisition into the personal opinions of church members with respect to matters not involving faith or morals. To maintain otherwise results in a reduction ad absurdum that is so obvious as to require no further comment.

3. As a matter of political expedience in order to prevent the resurgence of National Socialism, the German State has seen fit to outlaw something called “Holocaust Denial.” In my opinion, the illegalization of doubt and of questioning represents an extreme and unwarranted construction of international law’s prohibition against “incitement” of genocide. Your Eminence will no doubt understand that we in the United States give greater legal latitude to thought and expression. Germany can of course do what it wants; however, German officials overstep their bounds and confuse domains when they demand that the Church follow suit. The demand that the Church conform to and enlist itself in what is indisputably an issue of governmental policy is nothing more than kulturkampf and gleichschaltung under a modern guise.

4. The concept of “Holocaust Denial” flows from an anti-intellectual and mythological premise. History is not physical science but an inferential and interpretative account of alleged events which are attested to and ascertained through a variety of sources and methods. Doubt is the impetus for all well-founded wisdom; and revising accounts as new questions, methodologies and sources come to light is essential to the refinement of historical understanding. The “officialist” account of the annihilation of European Jewry has itself undergone numerous revisions since 1945. While some doubts are more cogent than others, to question accounts of an historical event is not a proper occasion for interdiction or recantation. FN-1

5. The accusation of “Holocaust Denial” is a juridical absurdity since the object of mandatory veneration or prohibited denial is never specifically defined. This results from the fact that “holocaust” is a metaphorical term --derived from burnt offering sacrifices of atonement (E.g. Lev. 5:10, 23:25; I Kings, 18:21-24, Mark 12:33)-- which neither defines nor precisely describes any unitary historical event. The term acts rather as a label for an aggregate of different acts and modalities which gave rise to an array of mediate and ultimate consequences that converge at some ultimate and general level. What part of this historical panoply is anyone not to deny on pain of prosecution or excommunication? FN-2

6. In my view, the furore raised by the Jewish political and religious establishments over past remarks of an obscure bishop cannot be regarded as being undertaken in good faith. Certainly they are entitled to meet any historical argument with counter arguments on the merits or, even, disparagement. But that is not what they have done. Instead the bishop’s past or personal remarks have been used as the pretext for making unwarranted demands on the Church itself accompanied by threats and retaliation. Fn-3

7. Jewish thinkers are certainly entitled to explore the theological ramifications of an event so catastrophic to their people; and, to elaborate, a holocaust theology of atonement as a guide for their own perplexity. Such theological explorations can be worthy of respectful consideration by Christians. But what is being unacceptably demanded is that an image of “The Holocaust,” as an historical burnt offering, replace that of the Crucifixion on our altars.

8. The Church, properly and of its own accord, has hitherto condemned racism, “racial idolatry” (Brennende Sorge) and anti-semitism as inimical with a faith based on Christ’s sacrifice for all mankind. That condemnation is necessary and sufficient. But when the Church exerts its magisterium to “unequivocally” condemns or anathematize the denial or rejection of a denoted mental object (in this case something labelled “the Holocaust”) it necessarily raises that object to the status of the sacrosanct as the focus of religious commemoration and veneration. Of all the injustices and tragedies in the world, for Catholics, the only event requiring acceptance and affirmation is the divine drama of the Crucifixion.

And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding,and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. Mark 12:33

I trust Your Eminence will understand that I am not advocating that the Church weigh in on any historical or political controversy, but only that she preserve her doctrinal integrity by guarding closely the fundamental truth of our Faith. As in the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, theologians of good will respect and hearken to one another even in disagreement; for, in the end, we are all trying to understand our miserable existence. However, there are those who seek to use a tragedy in history for political gain, as Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, of Hebrew University, has himself pointed out. There are also those who from long held grievances and resentments would like nothing better than to see Mother Church, prostrated and gutted from within. Our charity should not weaken our strength.

I trust nothing I have said will give offence and, with utmost respect for Your Eminence, remain,

Very truly yours,

©WCG, 2009
.