by Ronald Rychlak

(Catalyst 5/2004)

During World War II and for years after it ended, Pope Pius XII was heralded as a staunch opponent of the Nazis and a champion of their victims. Then in 1963, as the result of a piece of fiction written by German playwright Rolf Hochhuth, a controversy arose about whether the Pope had been sufficiently outspoken about Nazi atrocities. One of the earliest papal critics of this era was Robert Katz. In his 1967 Death in Rome and in his 1969 Black Sabbath, Katz severely criticized Pope Pius XII for failing to take a firmer stand in opposition to the Nazis.

After the controversy re-erupted in the past few years, with the publication of several new books, authors like John Cornwell and Susan Zuccotti were justifiably criticized for relying on Katz’s work, which pre-dated the extensive release of Vatican documents on this subject.

Now, in The Battle for Rome: The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope (Simon and Schuster: New York 2003) Katz re-asserts his old charges. Not only does he cite his out-dated books for authority, but coming full circle, he relies upon Zuccotti and Cornwell who had relied upon him! In fact, at one point (p. 54), Katz refers to a charge made by “one historian.” Flipping to the endnotes, one finds an abbreviation. Only by further flipping to Katz’s key does the reader learn that Katz’s “historian” is journalist (not historian) John Cornwell and his discredited book, Hitler’s Pope.

One of the reasons why serious scholars have avoided Katz’s earlier books is because of a lawsuit that was filed by Pope Pius XII’s niece, Elena Rossignani. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that: “Robert Katz wished to defame Pius XII, attributing to him actions, decisions and sentiments which no objective fact and no witness authorized him to do.” Katz was fined 400,000 Lire and given a 13-month suspended prison sentence.

In his new book, Katz discounts that lawsuit, noting that because of an amnesty, the litigation was ruled moot. That may be a legal defense, but it does not negate the two separate findings on the merits against Katz, and those findings should be sufficient to warn readers about the legitimacy of (and motivation behind) Katz’s work.

Katz focuses on the period when German troops occupied Rome. The first important Vatican-related event took place in October 1943, when the Nazis rounded up about 1,200 Roman Jews for deportation. Katz concludes that the Allies had advance notice of the planned roundup and that Pope Pius had at least an unsubstantiated warning of it.

Katz reports that a copy of a German telegram revealing the Nazi order for the roundup of Jews was passed on to President Franklin Roosevelt. Only by consulting the notes at the back of the book, however, does one learn that the telegram reached Roosevelt nearly three months after the roundup
Katz’s case against Pope Pius XII, who had offered gold to pay a ransom to the Germans to prevent deportations, is even weaker. (Katz even faults Pius for making this offer, because it may have dissuaded some Jews from going into hiding!)

Katz claims that the German Ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsaecker urged the Pope to make “an official protest” on the day that the Jewish people were arrested. In support of this claim, Katz cites a telegram sent by the Consul at the German embassy to the Quirinal [seat of the Italian government] to the Foreign Office in Berlin. This telegram, however, was sent nine days before the roundup and said nothing about any plan urged on the Vatican.

In a conversation that Weizsaecker had with the Vatican Secretary of State on the day of the arrests, the ambassador expressly urged the Pope not to openly protest, since a protest would only make things worse. In fact, thanks in part to Vatican intervention, about 200 prisoners were freed. Moreover, there were no further mass arrests of Roman Jews (thousands of whom—with papal support—went into hiding in Church properties). Obviously, Pius acted with the best interest of the victims in mind.

The second event on which Katz focuses took place on March 23, 1944 after Italian partisans set off a bomb which killed 33 members of the German police. Hitler ordered the immediate execution of ten prisoners for every soldier killed. Within hours, 335 prisoners (most of whom were not Jewish; one was a priest) were led to the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome and shot. The massacre took place in complete secrecy.

Katz argues that the Pope knew of the retaliation in advance but that he did nothing to help. He cites as “proof” a memorandum that was received at the Vatican on March 24, about five hours before the prisoners were killed. That memo, which was published by the Vatican in 1980, said that “it is however foreseen that for every German killed 10 Italians will be executed.”

First of all, this memo probably did not make it all the way to the Pope prior to the executions. More importantly, Pope Pius XII certainly was well aware of the likelihood of brutal Nazi retaliation before he got this memo, which provided no specific details or new information. In fact, historian Owen Chadwick cited the document as proof that Pius XII obviously did not know details of the reprisal.
When the memorandum made its way to him, Pius sent a priest to obtain more information and release of the prisoners. The Gestapo chief of police, however, would not receive the Pope’s messenger. The executions were already underway. That officer (Herbert Kappler) testified during his post-war trial that “Pope Pius XII was not aware of the Nazis’ plans before the massacre.”

Katz’s efforts to defame Pius XII are evident from the very beginning of this book. The text starts with a report from the Roman police chief on the activity of the clergy and Catholic Organizations. It says, “The clergy continues to maintain an attitude of cooperation with the Government.” Since the book is about the era of Nazi occupation, one might think that the Church was in cahoots with the Germans. The date of the report, however, is prior to the Nazi occupation.

Katz suggests that Pius should have approved of rebel efforts to murder Nazis. At the same time, he suggests that the Pope should have participated in a funeral for murdered Nazis. He also criticizes Pius for his efforts to bring about peace. Additionally, Katz seems to think that the Pope should have behaved differently when the victims were Italian Catholics as opposed to Jews. Can you imagine the justifiable criticism if the Pope had done that?

Katz would have the reader believe that Sir Francis D’Arcy Osborne, British Minister to the Holy See from 1936 to 1947, was a critic of Pius. In fact, following the war Osborne wrote that “Pius XII was the most warmly humane, kindly, generous, sympathetic (and, incidentally, saintly) character that it has been my privilege to meet in the course of a long life.” Similarly, Katz wants us to believe that the U.S. representative in the Vatican, Harold Tittman, was a papal critic. Tittman’s son, however, is working on his father’s memoirs, and he reports that the U.S. representative held a very favorable opinion of Pius XII’s policies. Most preposterous of all is the attempt to suggest that Domenico Cardinal Tardini held Pius in low regard. One only need consult Tardini’s loving tribute, Memories of Pius XII, to see the falseness of that charge.

Katz contends that Pius was prejudiced not only against Jews but also against blacks. He cites a British memorandum indicating that after the liberation of Rome, the Pope requested that “colored troops” not be used to garrison the Vatican. This canard stems from a report the Pope received about French Moroccan troops. They were particularly brutal, raping and looting whereever they went. The Pope did not want these specific soldiers stationed in Rome (or anywhere else). He expressed his concerns about these men to British Ambassador Osborne, who broadened the statement in his cable back to London, saying that the Pope did not want “colored troops” stationed at the Vatican.

The Pope’s concern about these specific French Moroccan troops is made clear in a declassified confidential memorandum from the OSS, an article that appeared in the Vatican newspaper, and a message sent from the Vatican to its representative in France. None of these documents make reference to race, just the Pope’s concern over these specific French Moroccan troops. (Although Katz did not know how they played into this story, even he noted the outrageous brutality of these soldiers.)

Katz assails Pope Pius IX as an anti-Semite; incorrectly asserts that Pius XII favored the Germans over the Soviets in World War II; calls Pius XII pompous; mocks the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who praised Pius XII); accepts self-serving testimony from Nazi officers over Jewish and Catholic witnesses; repeats stories that have been shown to be false; gives inaccurate interpretations to papal statements; cites rumors that suggest the Pope was prepared to flee Rome; and takes every cheap shot that he can.

Of those who support Pius XII, Katz writes: “The Pope’s defenders can do no better than cite decades-old research of deflated credibility….” That, of course, is preposterous. All kinds of new evidence has come to light in the past year with the opening of new archives. Every bit of it supports the view that Pius XII and the Vatican leadership were opposed to the Nazis and did what they could to help all victims, Jewish or otherwise.

One final error made by Katz: He reports at the end of the book that Ronald J. Rychlak is a “non-Catholic lawyer and professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, now Pius’s staunchest supporter.” I am and always have been Catholic.

Ron Rychlak is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Mississippi School of Law. His is the author ofHitler, the War, and the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000).

by Ronald Rychlak

(Catalyst 5/2004)

During World War II and for years after it ended, Pope Pius XII was heralded as a staunch opponent of the Nazis and a champion of their victims. Then in 1963, as the result of a piece of fiction written by German playwright Rolf Hochhuth, a controversy arose about whether the Pope had been sufficiently outspoken about Nazi atrocities. One of the earliest papal critics of this era was Robert Katz. In his 1967 Death in Rome and in his 1969 Black Sabbath, Katz severely criticized Pope Pius XII for failing to take a firmer stand in opposition to the Nazis.

After the controversy re-erupted in the past few years, with the publication of several new books, authors like John Cornwell and Susan Zuccotti were justifiably criticized for relying on Katz’s work, which pre-dated the extensive release of Vatican documents on this subject. 

Now, in The Battle for Rome: The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope (Simon and Schuster: New York 2003) Katz re-asserts his old charges. Not only does he cite his out-dated books for authority, but coming full circle, he relies upon Zuccotti and Cornwell who had relied upon him! In fact, at one point (p. 54), Katz refers to a charge made by “one historian.” Flipping to the endnotes, one finds an abbreviation. Only by further flipping to Katz’s key does the reader learn that Katz’s “historian” is journalist (not historian) John Cornwell and his discredited book, Hitler’s Pope. 

One of the reasons why serious scholars have avoided Katz’s earlier books is because of a lawsuit that was filed by Pope Pius XII’s niece, Elena Rossignani. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that: “Robert Katz wished to defame Pius XII, attributing to him actions, decisions and sentiments which no objective fact and no witness authorized him to do.” Katz was fined 400,000 Lire and given a 13-month suspended prison sentence.

In his new book, Katz discounts that lawsuit, noting that because of an amnesty, the litigation was ruled moot. That may be a legal defense, but it does not negate the two separate findings on the merits against Katz, and those findings should be sufficient to warn readers about the legitimacy of (and motivation behind) Katz’s work.

Katz focuses on the period when German troops occupied Rome. The first important Vatican-related event took place in October 1943, when the Nazis rounded up about 1,200 Roman Jews for deportation. Katz concludes that the Allies had advance notice of the planned roundup and that Pope Pius had at least an unsubstantiated warning of it. 

Katz reports that a copy of a German telegram revealing the Nazi order for the roundup of Jews was passed on to President Franklin Roosevelt. Only by consulting the notes at the back of the book, however, does one learn that the telegram reached Roosevelt nearly three months after the roundup
Katz’s case against Pope Pius XII, who had offered gold to pay a ransom to the Germans to prevent deportations, is even weaker. (Katz even faults Pius for making this offer, because it may have dissuaded some Jews from going into hiding!)

Katz claims that the German Ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsaecker urged the Pope to make “an official protest” on the day that the Jewish people were arrested. In support of this claim, Katz cites a telegram sent by the Consul at the German embassy to the Quirinal [seat of the Italian government] to the Foreign Office in Berlin. This telegram, however, was sent nine days before the roundup and said nothing about any plan urged on the Vatican. 

In a conversation that Weizsaecker had with the Vatican Secretary of State on the day of the arrests, the ambassador expressly urged the Pope not to openly protest, since a protest would only make things worse. In fact, thanks in part to Vatican intervention, about 200 prisoners were freed. Moreover, there were no further mass arrests of Roman Jews (thousands of whom—with papal support—went into hiding in Church properties). Obviously, Pius acted with the best interest of the victims in mind.

The second event on which Katz focuses took place on March 23, 1944 after Italian partisans set off a bomb which killed 33 members of the German police. Hitler ordered the immediate execution of ten prisoners for every soldier killed. Within hours, 335 prisoners (most of whom were not Jewish; one was a priest) were led to the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome and shot. The massacre took place in complete secrecy.

Katz argues that the Pope knew of the retaliation in advance but that he did nothing to help. He cites as “proof” a memorandum that was received at the Vatican on March 24, about five hours before the prisoners were killed. That memo, which was published by the Vatican in 1980, said that “it is however foreseen that for every German killed 10 Italians will be executed.”

First of all, this memo probably did not make it all the way to the Pope prior to the executions. More importantly, Pope Pius XII certainly was well aware of the likelihood of brutal Nazi retaliation before he got this memo, which provided no specific details or new information. In fact, historian Owen Chadwick cited the document as proof that Pius XII obviously did not know details of the reprisal. 
When the memorandum made its way to him, Pius sent a priest to obtain more information and release of the prisoners. The Gestapo chief of police, however, would not receive the Pope’s messenger. The executions were already underway. That officer (Herbert Kappler) testified during his post-war trial that “Pope Pius XII was not aware of the Nazis’ plans before the massacre.” 

Katz’s efforts to defame Pius XII are evident from the very beginning of this book. The text starts with a report from the Roman police chief on the activity of the clergy and Catholic Organizations. It says, “The clergy continues to maintain an attitude of cooperation with the Government.” Since the book is about the era of Nazi occupation, one might think that the Church was in cahoots with the Germans. The date of the report, however, is prior to the Nazi occupation. 

Katz suggests that Pius should have approved of rebel efforts to murder Nazis. At the same time, he suggests that the Pope should have participated in a funeral for murdered Nazis. He also criticizes Pius for his efforts to bring about peace. Additionally, Katz seems to think that the Pope should have behaved differently when the victims were Italian Catholics as opposed to Jews. Can you imagine the justifiable criticism if the Pope had done that?

Katz would have the reader believe that Sir Francis D’Arcy Osborne, British Minister to the Holy See from 1936 to 1947, was a critic of Pius. In fact, following the war Osborne wrote that “Pius XII was the most warmly humane, kindly, generous, sympathetic (and, incidentally, saintly) character that it has been my privilege to meet in the course of a long life.” Similarly, Katz wants us to believe that the U.S. representative in the Vatican, Harold Tittman, was a papal critic. Tittman’s son, however, is working on his father’s memoirs, and he reports that the U.S. representative held a very favorable opinion of Pius XII’s policies. Most preposterous of all is the attempt to suggest that Domenico Cardinal Tardini held Pius in low regard. One only need consult Tardini’s loving tribute, Memories of Pius XII, to see the falseness of that charge.

Katz contends that Pius was prejudiced not only against Jews but also against blacks. He cites a British memorandum indicating that after the liberation of Rome, the Pope requested that “colored troops” not be used to garrison the Vatican. This canard stems from a report the Pope received about French Moroccan troops. They were particularly brutal, raping and looting whereever they went. The Pope did not want these specific soldiers stationed in Rome (or anywhere else). He expressed his concerns about these men to British Ambassador Osborne, who broadened the statement in his cable back to London, saying that the Pope did not want “colored troops” stationed at the Vatican.

The Pope’s concern about these specific French Moroccan troops is made clear in a declassified confidential memorandum from the OSS, an article that appeared in the Vatican newspaper, and a message sent from the Vatican to its representative in France. None of these documents make reference to race, just the Pope’s concern over these specific French Moroccan troops. (Although Katz did not know how they played into this story, even he noted the outrageous brutality of these soldiers.) 

Katz assails Pope Pius IX as an anti-Semite; incorrectly asserts that Pius XII favored the Germans over the Soviets in World War II; calls Pius XII pompous; mocks the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who praised Pius XII); accepts self-serving testimony from Nazi officers over Jewish and Catholic witnesses; repeats stories that have been shown to be false; gives inaccurate interpretations to papal statements; cites rumors that suggest the Pope was prepared to flee Rome; and takes every cheap shot that he can.

Of those who support Pius XII, Katz writes: “The Pope’s defenders can do no better than cite decades-old research of deflated credibility….” That, of course, is preposterous. All kinds of new evidence has come to light in the past year with the opening of new archives. Every bit of it supports the view that Pius XII and the Vatican leadership were opposed to the Nazis and did what they could to help all victims, Jewish or otherwise.

One final error made by Katz: He reports at the end of the book that Ronald J. Rychlak is a “non-Catholic lawyer and professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, now Pius’s staunchest supporter.” I am and always have been Catholic.

Ron Rychlak is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Mississippi School of Law. His is the author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000).

by Ronald Rychlak

(Catalyst 5/2004)

During World War II and for years after it ended, Pope Pius XII was heralded as a staunch opponent of the Nazis and a champion of their victims. Then in 1963, as the result of a piece of fiction written by German playwright Rolf Hochhuth, a controversy arose about whether the Pope had been sufficiently outspoken about Nazi atrocities. One of the earliest papal critics of this era was Robert Katz. In his 1967 Death in Rome and in his 1969 Black Sabbath, Katz severely criticized Pope Pius XII for failing to take a firmer stand in opposition to the Nazis.

After the controversy re-erupted in the past few years, with the publication of several new books, authors like John Cornwell and Susan Zuccotti were justifiably criticized for relying on Katz’s work, which pre-dated the extensive release of Vatican documents on this subject. 

Now, in The Battle for Rome: The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope (Simon and Schuster: New York 2003) Katz re-asserts his old charges. Not only does he cite his out-dated books for authority, but coming full circle, he relies upon Zuccotti and Cornwell who had relied upon him! In fact, at one point (p. 54), Katz refers to a charge made by “one historian.” Flipping to the endnotes, one finds an abbreviation. Only by further flipping to Katz’s key does the reader learn that Katz’s “historian” is journalist (not historian) John Cornwell and his discredited book, Hitler’s Pope. 

One of the reasons why serious scholars have avoided Katz’s earlier books is because of a lawsuit that was filed by Pope Pius XII’s niece, Elena Rossignani. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that: “Robert Katz wished to defame Pius XII, attributing to him actions, decisions and sentiments which no objective fact and no witness authorized him to do.” Katz was fined 400,000 Lire and given a 13-month suspended prison sentence.

In his new book, Katz discounts that lawsuit, noting that because of an amnesty, the litigation was ruled moot. That may be a legal defense, but it does not negate the two separate findings on the merits against Katz, and those findings should be sufficient to warn readers about the legitimacy of (and motivation behind) Katz’s work.

Katz focuses on the period when German troops occupied Rome. The first important Vatican-related event took place in October 1943, when the Nazis rounded up about 1,200 Roman Jews for deportation. Katz concludes that the Allies had advance notice of the planned roundup and that Pope Pius had at least an unsubstantiated warning of it. 

Katz reports that a copy of a German telegram revealing the Nazi order for the roundup of Jews was passed on to President Franklin Roosevelt. Only by consulting the notes at the back of the book, however, does one learn that the telegram reached Roosevelt nearly three months after the roundup
Katz’s case against Pope Pius XII, who had offered gold to pay a ransom to the Germans to prevent deportations, is even weaker. (Katz even faults Pius for making this offer, because it may have dissuaded some Jews from going into hiding!)

Katz claims that the German Ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsaecker urged the Pope to make “an official protest” on the day that the Jewish people were arrested. In support of this claim, Katz cites a telegram sent by the Consul at the German embassy to the Quirinal [seat of the Italian government] to the Foreign Office in Berlin. This telegram, however, was sent nine days before the roundup and said nothing about any plan urged on the Vatican. 

In a conversation that Weizsaecker had with the Vatican Secretary of State on the day of the arrests, the ambassador expressly urged the Pope not to openly protest, since a protest would only make things worse. In fact, thanks in part to Vatican intervention, about 200 prisoners were freed. Moreover, there were no further mass arrests of Roman Jews (thousands of whom—with papal support—went into hiding in Church properties). Obviously, Pius acted with the best interest of the victims in mind.

The second event on which Katz focuses took place on March 23, 1944 after Italian partisans set off a bomb which killed 33 members of the German police. Hitler ordered the immediate execution of ten prisoners for every soldier killed. Within hours, 335 prisoners (most of whom were not Jewish; one was a priest) were led to the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome and shot. The massacre took place in complete secrecy.

Katz argues that the Pope knew of the retaliation in advance but that he did nothing to help. He cites as “proof” a memorandum that was received at the Vatican on March 24, about five hours before the prisoners were killed. That memo, which was published by the Vatican in 1980, said that “it is however foreseen that for every German killed 10 Italians will be executed.”

First of all, this memo probably did not make it all the way to the Pope prior to the executions. More importantly, Pope Pius XII certainly was well aware of the likelihood of brutal Nazi retaliation before he got this memo, which provided no specific details or new information. In fact, historian Owen Chadwick cited the document as proof that Pius XII obviously did not know details of the reprisal. 
When the memorandum made its way to him, Pius sent a priest to obtain more information and release of the prisoners. The Gestapo chief of police, however, would not receive the Pope’s messenger. The executions were already underway. That officer (Herbert Kappler) testified during his post-war trial that “Pope Pius XII was not aware of the Nazis’ plans before the massacre.” 

Katz’s efforts to defame Pius XII are evident from the very beginning of this book. The text starts with a report from the Roman police chief on the activity of the clergy and Catholic Organizations. It says, “The clergy continues to maintain an attitude of cooperation with the Government.” Since the book is about the era of Nazi occupation, one might think that the Church was in cahoots with the Germans. The date of the report, however, is prior to the Nazi occupation. 

Katz suggests that Pius should have approved of rebel efforts to murder Nazis. At the same time, he suggests that the Pope should have participated in a funeral for murdered Nazis. He also criticizes Pius for his efforts to bring about peace. Additionally, Katz seems to think that the Pope should have behaved differently when the victims were Italian Catholics as opposed to Jews. Can you imagine the justifiable criticism if the Pope had done that?

Katz would have the reader believe that Sir Francis D’Arcy Osborne, British Minister to the Holy See from 1936 to 1947, was a critic of Pius. In fact, following the war Osborne wrote that “Pius XII was the most warmly humane, kindly, generous, sympathetic (and, incidentally, saintly) character that it has been my privilege to meet in the course of a long life.” Similarly, Katz wants us to believe that the U.S. representative in the Vatican, Harold Tittman, was a papal critic. Tittman’s son, however, is working on his father’s memoirs, and he reports that the U.S. representative held a very favorable opinion of Pius XII’s policies. Most preposterous of all is the attempt to suggest that Domenico Cardinal Tardini held Pius in low regard. One only need consult Tardini’s loving tribute, Memories of Pius XII, to see the falseness of that charge.

Katz contends that Pius was prejudiced not only against Jews but also against blacks. He cites a British memorandum indicating that after the liberation of Rome, the Pope requested that “colored troops” not be used to garrison the Vatican. This canard stems from a report the Pope received about French Moroccan troops. They were particularly brutal, raping and looting whereever they went. The Pope did not want these specific soldiers stationed in Rome (or anywhere else). He expressed his concerns about these men to British Ambassador Osborne, who broadened the statement in his cable back to London, saying that the Pope did not want “colored troops” stationed at the Vatican.

The Pope’s concern about these specific French Moroccan troops is made clear in a declassified confidential memorandum from the OSS, an article that appeared in the Vatican newspaper, and a message sent from the Vatican to its representative in France. None of these documents make reference to race, just the Pope’s concern over these specific French Moroccan troops. (Although Katz did not know how they played into this story, even he noted the outrageous brutality of these soldiers.) 

Katz assails Pope Pius IX as an anti-Semite; incorrectly asserts that Pius XII favored the Germans over the Soviets in World War II; calls Pius XII pompous; mocks the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who praised Pius XII); accepts self-serving testimony from Nazi officers over Jewish and Catholic witnesses; repeats stories that have been shown to be false; gives inaccurate interpretations to papal statements; cites rumors that suggest the Pope was prepared to flee Rome; and takes every cheap shot that he can.

Of those who support Pius XII, Katz writes: “The Pope’s defenders can do no better than cite decades-old research of deflated credibility….” That, of course, is preposterous. All kinds of new evidence has come to light in the past year with the opening of new archives. Every bit of it supports the view that Pius XII and the Vatican leadership were opposed to the Nazis and did what they could to help all victims, Jewish or otherwise.

One final error made by Katz: He reports at the end of the book that Ronald J. Rychlak is a “non-Catholic lawyer and professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law, now Pius’s staunchest supporter.” I am and always have been Catholic.

Ron Rychlak is a Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Mississippi School of Law. His is the author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor, 2000).

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

(Catalyst 4/04)

Many of the attacks on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” should have been expected. They have mostly come from secular liberals who have already manifested their hostility to Christianity in the public life of the United States. As some wag noted almost as soon as the movie was announced: “If you didn’t like the book, you won’t like the movie.” Those who have characterized Mel Gibson’s graphic depiction of the sufferings of Christ as “pornographic” surely mostly have no objections to actual pornography, and so what are they so upset about?

Probably it goes back to their intense dislike of seeing authentic Christianity portrayed in a serious way in a society which has supposedly left all that behind as an outmoded (but still dangerous) superstition.

It is disappointing, though, when not just knee-jerk secular liberals but prominent conservatives whom Catholics have generally had cause to admire—for many of their positions on the right side in our current culture wars—find it necessary to join in the by-now unprecedented chorus of frantic and sometimes even hysterical criticism of “the Passion.” Talk about hate speech! The very thing Mel Gibson was supposedly fomenting against the Jews is what has relentlessly been directed against him!

So it is disappointing when respected figures such as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb and columnist Charles Krauthammer, in columns published in The Washington Post(3/5 & 3/7/04), decide they have to join the jeering chorus of the Christianity-despising cultural elites. The criticism of these elites has long since exceeded the bounds of the respect which citizens in a pluralistic society ought to have for the religious beliefs of others, and, too often, beyond the bounds of common decency itself.
Professor Himmelfarb, like so many of the earlier critics of the film, does not even think it is necessary to go see it. Rather, she is concerned about its effect as a “phenomenon” on the “culture.” “Depictions of violence and barbarity that may have spiritual meaning for a particular faith,” she writes, “may not only be derogatory to another faith but also detrimental to society.” She goes on:
“How would we (Gibson and all the rest of us) feel if a Hollywood producer (a Hollywood so notoriously populated by Jews) made a film in the same ‘over the edge’ spirit vaunted by Gibson, dramatizing another historical event—the auto-da-fé in Spain in February, 1481, for example, in which six men and six women conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity) were tortured and burned alive at the stake, while richly robed prelates presided over the scene?”

How would we feel, indeed? This is not a bad description of how practically every Hollywood film ever made has regularly depicted the Spanish Inquisition! The same thing is true about how it has normally been described in fiction and drama, including Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov as Exhibit A. The Spanish Inquisition is virtually always depicted as a malevolent and sinister “Catholic” thing, “while richly robed prelates preside over the scene.” This is a burden that has long and consistently been laid upon Catholics. Does Professor Himmelfarb know of a single popular presentation of the Spanish Inquisition which does not do this?

Lost in the confusion about what everybody “knows” the Inquisition was, are the facts that it was more an affair of the Spanish monarchy than of the Catholic Church as such; and, by the (exceedingly brutal) standards of the time in both Protestant and Catholic Europe, it was relatively fair—it quite rigorously followed a fixed procedure and “rule of law” that resulted in a high percentage of acquittals. Finally, compared to the totalitarianisms ushered into the world following the Enlightenment, the numbers of its victims were miniscule.

Professor Himmelfarb fears a “coarsening of religious sensibility evident in the response to this new Passion play, as if the message of Jesus is validated only by [the] degree of suffering, torture, violence….” Why is it, in a Hollywood given over generally to the portrayal of violence, that only Mel Gibson’s film is suddenly going to bring all this about? What about how Hollywood with equal regularity depicts Christians today as deluded simpletons, killjoy puritans, or ignorant fanatics hardly distinguishable from members of the Taliban? How is “religious sensibility” affected by all of this? As for concentration on “suffering, torture, and violence,” what are we to think of, for example, the Holocaust Museum, in which all these same things are relentlessly portrayed?

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer presents a much harder case. The title of his Washington Post column is “Gibson’s Blood Libel.” He thus deliberately revives the term once used to stir up persecutions of the Jews with false accusations of ritual murder, poisoning of the wells, and such. To employ such a loaded term while accusing Gibson of “interreligious aggression” cannot but recall that old pot that called the kettle black. It ill befits Krauthammer to describe anyone as “vicious” while showing himself capable of using a term that brands Gibson as worse than a criminal.

It is sadly true, of course, that Jews have been persecuted by Christians in various times and places. This is something contemporary Christians must not only deplore but take active measures to prevent any recurrence of—as Charles Kraut-hammer recognizes the Catholic Church did at Vatican Council II. At the same time, the grim picture he paints implying that historical relations between Jews and Christians consisted of an almost unrelieved record of oppression of the former by the latter is a gross simplification.

In the early centuries it was the Jews who persecuted the Christians. The Talmud composed back in those days contains slanders against the Christians that easily rival those directed by modern anti-Semites against the Jews. Early Christian writers were well acquainted with such slanders when penning replies to them in kind for which they are today reproached as “anti-Semitic.” It is unfortunately true that, down through history, not all Christians have consistently followed Jesus when he prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Nevertheless, the idea that the persecution of Jews by Christians, when it occurred, was always something arbitrary and unprovoked, will not stand up to historical examination.

For one thing, in later centuries, the Jews constituted a minority that would not assimilate into the Christian society of the day. While this in no way justifies persecution of them, this was not always seen at the time, and the fact of it at least makes it more understandable when it did occur. There are today many sad examples of how minorities and outsiders are badly treated by “host” societies and cultures. It is a not uncommon phenomenon in human societies. And, in medieval times, when faced with a group that expressly denied the faith that the whole of society then mostly affirmed, Christians were seriously concerned.

Charles Krauthammer’s account, though, implies that Christian anti-Jewish sentiment was constant and consistent until Vatican Council II was brought to see the light in the wake of the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. This fails to recognize that it was the Church, particularly the popes, that were often the protectors of the Jews from popular outbreaks against them. Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) strongly condemned violence against them, called for respect for their worship and liberty of conscience, and counseled equity and kindness towards them. Quite a while before Vatican II, the Second Council of Nicaea (787) decreed that the Jews should be allowed to “be Hebrews openly, according to their own religion.” A papal bull of Pope Calixtus II (1190) condemning violence against the Jews and attempts to baptize them under constraint was confirmed at least twenty-two times up to the middle of the eighteenth century. And these are only a few of the more salient efforts of the Catholic Church and her bishops in favor of the Jews in the course of European history.

Charles Krauthammer’s historical account is thus both skewed and simplistic. That he fails to distinguish between a religious animus and the murderous modern ideology of the Nazis is another mark against him. He draws a direct line between the “blood libel” idea he has revived and the “six million Jews systematically murdered in six years” in wartime Europe. These six million should decidedly never be forgotten. But what “blood libel” does he think is responsible for the mass murder by those same Nazis of some nine million additional non-Jewish victims, of whom at least three million were Polish Catholics (not to speak of yet three million more Russian prisoners of war exterminated by the Nazis)?

No space remains to discuss his distorted view of the film itself, which he believes is untrue to the accounts recorded in the Gospels. He needs to read the Gospels! He objects in particular to the scourging, but does he have any idea of what was involved in a Roman scourging? The Romans employed a flagellum consisting of leather thongs with sharpened metal points, the effect of which could only have been what the film depicts.

His worst mistake, however, is to imagine that the “sinister, hooded” figure of Satan shown “moving among the crowd of Jews” is or was in any way intended to be directed against them. No Christian, viewing the film, would ever understand this portrayal of Satan as anything but a portrayal of Satan moving among us, as Mel Gibson surely intended.

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former Assistant Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administrations and a member of the Board of Directors of the Catholic League.

by Eugene J. Fisher

(Catalyst 4/2006)

Patrick J. Gallo, editor, Pius XII, the Holocaust and the Revisionists: Essays. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co, 2006. 218 pages. PB. NP.

Sister Margherita Marchione, Crusade of Charity: Pius XII and POW’s (1939-1945). New York: Paulist Press, 2006. 284 pages.

Ronald J. Rychlak, Righteous Gentiles: How Pius XII and the Catholic Church saved Half a Million Jews from the Nazis. Dallas: Spence Publishing Co., 2005. 378 pages.

These three books, together with David G. Dalin’s The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis (reviewed in the September 2005 issue of Catalyst), absolutely decimate the attacks on the reputation of Pope Pius XII made in the spate of books by James Carroll, John Cornwell, Daniel Goldhagen, David Kertzer, Michael Phayer, Gary Wills and Susan Zucotti. They meticulously re-examine the charges against Pius, charges which sadly have become deeply embedded in the very grain of our culture.

David Dalin is a rabbi, while Ronald Rychlak, Margherita Marchione, and Patrick Gallo are Catholic. This is of some significance since much has been made of the fact that the anti-Pius attackers are either Jews (Kertzer, Goldhagen, Zucotti) or Catholics. Protestants, in the main, have stayed out of the papal fray, having their own ambiguous history during the Holocaust with which to deal. The motivation of Jewish critics of the pope is complex. Historian Yosef Haim Yerushalmi put his finger on the nub of it in his response to Rosemary Radford Reuther in a 1974 conference when he noted that over the centuries when the Jews were in extremis they could look to the papacy for relief from attacks by secular powers, and usually received it. Thus, the inability of the Holy See to influence Nazism’s genocide in the 20th century was profoundly shocking to Jews. Yerushalmi, however, goes on to note the relative weakness of the papacy in modern times in secular affairs, and to distinguish between medieval Christian anti-Jewishness and modern, racial, genocidal anti-Semitism, though noting, as have Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that the former was, in Yerushalmi’s words, a “necessary cause” for explaining the latter, though not a “sufficient cause,” being only one of a number of factors involved.

The motivation of Catholic critics of Pius is perhaps more subtle, though here again Yerushalmi shed light on it in 1974. While he acknowledges Reuther’s “sincere and profound involvement in the fate of the Jews,” he worries that for her it appears to be “part of a larger problem—that of the church itself,” in which “she places the dawn of a new attitude toward the Jews within the context of an obvious hope for a total regeneration of the church.” He goes on to note that “historically, reformist movements within the church have often been accompanied by an even more virulent anti-Semitism,” citing the Cluniac reform, Martin Luther (who advocated the destruction of synagogues and the expulsion of Jews) and Calvin’s Geneva, where Jews were forbidden to reside, though maintaining a legal right of residence and freedom to worship in Rome. The defenders of Pius, I believe, are quite accurate in noting similarly that for the authors of the anti-Pius books, the critique of the Church of the 1940’s is in fact a part of a larger, contemporary reformist agenda, which raises quite legitimate questions about their academic objectivity. Indeed, in the case of Reuther, the fact that she had used Jewish suffering to further her own agenda became patently clear only a few years later when she published a book rejecting the very existence of the Jewish state and declaring the Palestinians to be the true “Jews” of the time, thus placing Israel and real Jews into the category of “Nazis.”

The books reviewed here are for obvious reasons reactive in nature. As Joseph Bottum notes in the epilogue to the Gallo volume, we still await “a non-reactive account of Pius’ life and times, a book driven not by a reviewer’s instinct to answer charges but by the biographer’s impulse to tell an accurate story.” He adds, I believe wisely, that “before that can be done well, the archives of Pius XII’s pontificate will probably have to be fully catalogued and opened.”

Rychlak’s book, in a sense, comes closest to that goal, narrating Pius’ life within the context of his times. His estimate that the Church, through its nunciatures (which handed out false baptismal certificates by the tens of thousands to members of “the family of Jesus”) and through its monasteries and convents, rectories and other institutions saved some 500,000 Jews, is actually on the moderate side, with estimates ranging up to 800,000. Dalin, the rabbi, and Marchione agree with Rychlak that Pius in fact meets the criteria for a “Righteous Gentile” as defined by Yad va Shem, Jerusalem’s Holocaust museum, which Pope John Paul II visited so reverently and penitentially during his pilgrimage there in the Millennium Year. Gallo’s book is composed of essays, half of which were written by himself, half by such internationally prominent scholars as Matteo Napolitano of Italy and Juno Levai of Hungary. Half of the essays are new for this book, half published in journals before inclusion here. Readers will be treated to the trenchant wit of Justus George Lawler and the inexorable marshalling of evidence of Ronald Rychlak. George Sim Johnson takes on the myths surrounding Pius XI’s “hidden encyclical,” which like a Brooklyn egg cream was in fact neither “hidden” nor an “enclyclical” (since never promulgated, it remained simply a draft). Bottum himself in his essays fills in the gaps, such as the Ardeatine Massacre, and, as noted, comments incisively on the controversy as a whole.

Each volume, in its own way, attempts as well to explain why the attacks on Pius’ reputation were made. Dalin, not without reason, calls it a phenomenon of the culture wars of our time, in which the “left wing,” secular media latched on to the discrediting of Pius as part of its not-so-subtle attempt to discredit not just Catholicism, but religious faith in general. Gallo notes the continuity between the current charges against Pius and those made by the Soviet Union in its Cold War propaganda against the West, again with Pius as a symbolic target for a larger agenda. It is true that the current attackers have come from what would be called “the Left” and the defenders from “the Right.” It may be that to adjudicate this issue, like those surrounding Pius himself as Bottum indicates, we will have to await a time when all the documentation is out and the war itself a bit more distant in time and emotions.

Dalin and Rychlak are both critical of the work of the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, launched with great hope by the Holy See and the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations in December 1999, which I was asked by Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, then President of the Pontifical Commission of Religious Relations with the Jews, to coordinate on the Catholic side. I would like to state that Professor Michael Marrus, on the Jewish side, and all three Catholic scholars acted with integrity and professionalism throughout what turned out to be for us all a grueling ordeal.

I believe those who read the actual statement of the group will come away with a more positive view of what the group accomplished than its critics present. The statement praises the objectivity and thoroughness of the Actes et Documents du Satin-Seige relatifs a la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, a 12 volume set of documents put together by four Jesuit scholars from the massive materials in the Holy See’s “Secret Archives” for the period of WWII. The statement also praises the four papers produced by the group analyzing particular volumes, and the group’s correspondence with its sponsors.

Marchione’s Crusade of Charity is drawn largely from documents contained in Actes et Documents. It is her fourth book, all published by Paulist Press, on Pius XII. Whereas the first three were reactions to Pius’ critics in general, this one centers on the massive efforts made by the Holy See during the Second World War to respond to enquiries about Prisoners of War, and family members in general, including Jewish family members who were among the missing. It shows a Holy See deeply involved in what was at the time among the most humanitarian of missions: helping people, whether Catholics, Jews or Protestants, to discover the fate of their loved ones. Page after page is touched with moving testimony to love at its most basic, and to the huge efforts of the relatively small and understaffed Vatican to cope with the thousands of requests coming to it in the midst of a world gone insane. Whatever one thinks of the Pius Wars, this is a book to read. It is a book which gives us models to emulate in one’s own life.

Underlying the specific issue of Pope Pius, of course, is the deeper issue of the relationship between traditional Christian teaching on Jews and Judaism and the mindset not only of the perpetrators but also of the bystanders of Europe during the Holocaust. For whatever the ultimate, and hopefully dispassionate historical judgment of the actions of one pope, we Catholics, as Pope John Paul II reminded us time and again, must come to grips with that history, repent its sins, and do what needs to be done to ensure that it will never happen again. A proper framing of this deeper issue can be found in Catholic Teaching on the Shoah: Implementing the Holy See’s “We Remember” (USCCB Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations, 2001).

Eugene J. Fisher is the Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC.

(This is a revised and greatly expanded version of a review that first appeared in Catholic News Service.)

on misrepresentations in Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code

(Catalyst 3/2004)

The Dan Brown book, The Da Vinci Code, is a best-selling work of fiction that discusses a real-life Catholic organization, Opus Dei. To help separate fact from fiction, we asked officials at Opus Dei to write a short article on this subject. Herewith their reply.

Founded in 1928 by St. Josemaría Escrivá, Opus Dei (Latin for “work of God”) has a mission of spreading Christ’s teaching on the universal call to holiness. A personal prelature, it works in dioceses around the world, with the approval of local bishops. Opus Dei has been the subject of several myths, made popular recently by the Da Vinci Code.

Myth: Opus Dei has a political agenda.
Fact: The only thing Opus Dei has to say about politics is what the Church says, and many of the Church’s social teachings leave room for different opinions on concrete political questions. In these opinionable matters, Opus Dei members make their own decisions just like other faithful Catholics. But you won’t understand Opus Dei until you realize that politics—whether civil or ecclesial—just isn’t its institutional focus. Opus Dei’s focus is on providing spiritual guidance to help people deepen their faith and integrate it with their daily life.

Myth: Opus Dei is a secret society.
Fact: The Opus Dei Prelature publishes the names of all its priests and all its international and regional directors. Like dioceses and parishes, it does not publish lay members’ names. Neither do health clubs for that matter, and people surely deserve as much privacy in their spiritual affairs as they do in medical matters. Members, however, are more than happy to tell you of their membership and what Opus Dei is all about.

While we’re at it, we can confirm that the Pope’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, is a member, but we would like to dispel once and for all the rumors that Louis Freeh, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Mel Gibson are members.

Myth: Opus Dei brainwashes, coerces, or pressures members and potential members.
Fact: Opus Dei has complete respect for people’s freedom. It’s ludicrous to think that the Pope and bishops worldwide would support an institution that didn’t. In this era of relativism, there are plenty of people who will call teaching the faith, giving spiritual guidance, and being a Christian witness “brainwashing,” “coercion,” and “recruiting” or “proselytism.” Nowadays consenting adults are free of criticism for doing almost anything—anything apparently except trying to help people grow in their faith and practice it in their daily life.

Myth: Opus Dei makes its members practice dangerous corporal mortifications.
Fact: Each Lent, the Church reminds people that sacrifice is part of the spiritual life. To help its members follow this teaching, Opus Dei encourages them to make small sacrifices, such as persevering in their work or listening to those in need. The Catholic tradition also includes other penances, such as fasting and the use of a cilice or discipline, as means for deepening one’s union with Christ. Many saints, including Opus Dei’s founder, St. Josemaría Escrivá, have practiced such penances in a heroic way. Some celibate members of Opus Dei and of other Church institutions freely follow some of these customs, though in a mitigated way. They do so subject to the advice of their spiritual director and in a way that is never harmful to their health, completely unlike the Da Vinci Code‘s distorted representation. These kinds of sacrifices are certainly not a focus in Opus Dei, which emphasizes integrating faith with the activities of everyday life.

Myth: Opus Dei’s status as a “personal prelature” cuts it loose from oversight by the bishops.
Fact: Like a diocese, a personal prelature is overseen by the Holy See. Additionally, Opus Dei receives permission from local bishops before starting apostolic work in their dioceses and keeps diocesan bishops informed about its activities. The guidance it offers its members pertains only to matters connected with its mission, which is educating people about the universal call to holiness and helping them fulfill this call in their daily life. The members of the prelature remain members of their diocese and are subject to their local bishop just like other Catholics.

Myth: With all the criticism, Opus Dei must be doing something wrong.
Fact: Every successful organization has its critics, from Coca-Cola to the Catholic Church itself. As for Opus Dei’s critics, anyone who does not believe in Christ, the Church’s teachings, or loyalty to the Pope could easily have “issues” with Opus Dei, since it accepts all these things. It’s also common that an organization’s critics have personal reasons for misinterpreting things—even with good intentions. What’s more relevant than the criticism is the fact that millions of people around the world know and love Opus Dei, including the Pope and a great number of bishops. This is because Opus Dei gives so much help to ordinary people who want to connect their faith with daily life.

For further information, contact the Opus Dei Information Office at [email protected] or (212) 532-3570.

I have seen the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” on two occasions and consider it to be the most moving dramatization of the death of Jesus Christ ever made.  It is magnificent beyond words.  I stand with those Catholics, Protestants and Jews who have seen the film and do not find it to be anti-Semitic.  If I thought it were, I would not hesitate to condemn it.  Not everyone has, or will, agree with this assessment.  That’s fine.  What is not fine is the sheer demagoguery that has accompanied some of the criticism.

Last summer, Boston University theology professor Paula Fredriksen said in The New Republic, “When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.”  Fredriksen is a self-described “raised-Catholic, Marxist-feminist convert to Orthodox Judaism.”  She did not say “if violence breaks out”—but “when.”

More disturbing than Fredriksen has been Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL.  Foxman recently gained admission to the film when it was previewed in Orlando; he did so by identifying himself as executive director of The Church of the Truth.  In a news release, he wrote, “Will the film trigger pogroms against Jews?  Our answer is probably not.”  Which means it may.

And who exactly is it that Foxman has in mind?  On January 23, he was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “[Gibson is] hawking it on a commercial crusade to the churches of this country.  That’s what makes it dangerous.”  I wrote to him on January 26 asking for an apology, but none has been forthcoming.  “To say the film is dangerous because the people who are previewing it are church-going Christians,” I wrote, “is an insult to practicing Christians.”  I added, “The subtext of this remark is that church-going Christians are latent anti-Semitic bigots ready to lash out at Jews at any given moment.”

This is not an unusual reaction for the ADL.  In 1993, when the Passion Play “Jesus Was His Name” was performed in 23 American cities, Rabbi Leon Klenicki, director of the ADL’s interfaith department, warned that the “presentation does not contribute to peace.”  The record will show that not one act of violence occurred in any city.

If history is any guide, there will be no pogroms of any sort following the release of the movie.  Leonard Dinnerstein, author of Antisemitism in America, has said, “There never have been pogroms in America; there never have been respectable antisemitic political parties in America; and there never have been any federal laws curtailing Jewish opportunities in America.”  Indeed, Dinnerstein says that “in no Christian country has antisemitism been weaker than it has been in the United States.”

This is not to suggest that Jews haven’t been the subject of violence in the U.S.  Historically, groups like the Ku Klux Klan targeted Jews.  It also targeted Catholics and, of course, African Americans.  But the claim that Jews need to be especially on guard against roving bands of thugs cannot be sustained.

In the late 1960s, a report was submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.  The commission, headed by Dr. Milton S. Eisenhower, released its findings in a book titled, The History of Violence in America; it was edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr.  The principal victims of violence identified in the book are Native Americans, African Americans, Roman Catholics and labor.

The worst urban riots occurred in the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s.  “Among the most important types of riots,” the report says, “were labor riots, election riots, antiabolitionist riots, anti-Negro riots, anti-Catholic riots, and riots of various sorts involving the turbulent volunteer firemen’s units.”  Except for the Civil War draft riots, things settled down after this period.  But the point to be made is that the Jewish community, albeit small, was not then, or later, among the most likely to be victimized.

Violence against Jews in more recent times has either been waged, or encouraged, by such groups as the Aryan Nation, Christian Identity, National Alliance, National Socialists, Posse Comitatus and Church of the Creator.  None of these organizations is remotely Christian and many are indeed hostile to Christians (e.g. Christian Identity and Church of the Creator).  The Nation of Islam is another group that is hostile to Jews; it is also hostile to Catholics.  Arguably the worst anti-Semitic violence ever to occur—it was certainly in the worst in New York City’s history—was the Crown Heights riots of 1991.  That this riot had absolutely nothing to do with a Christian animus toward Jews is disputed by no one.

The idea that Christians will attack Jews in the streets after seeing “The Passion of the Christ” is pernicious.  Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the ADL, has said, “We have good reason to be seriously concerned about Gibson’s plans to retell the Passion.  Historically, the Passion—the story of the killing of Jesus—has resulted in the death of Jews.”  Not in this country it hasn’t, and if the ADL wants to qualify its charge by citing examples from the Middle Ages, then it should do so.

Some critics of the film cite concerns stemming from the Holocaust and beyond.  Harold Brackman, consultant to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, has said, “It is Christians who bear the responsibility, after 2000 years of religious-inspired anti-Semitism, to inhibit rather than inflame the excesses of their own haters.  When filmmakers with a Christological agenda fail to accept this responsibility, the blood that may result is indeed on their hands.”  Not only is this kind of inflammatory rhetoric destructive of good Christian-Jewish relations, it makes one wonder—if Christian hatred of Jews is so visceral—why have there been no pogroms in the U.S. in over 200 years?

More sensible were those American Jews who signed the 2000 statement, “Dabru Emet.”  Although they properly noted that Christianity has at times fueled anti-Semitism, they nonetheless concluded, “Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon.”  Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said it best: “It should never be said that Christians were responsible for the Holocaust—Nazis were.  Blaming Christians would be as unjustified as holding Jews accountable for the death of Jesus.  Individuals were responsible in both situations.”

Moreover, Christians are no strangers to violence, either.  Yehuda Bauer, former director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, and retired professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University, estimates that 25 million non-Jews died in the Holocaust.  I hasten to add that these victims, most of whom were Christians, were not selected for death because of their ethnic or religious status.  This makes what happened to Jews of unique and surpassing importance.  But it is wrong to discount the suffering of Christians.  Furthermore, it is estimated that 70 million Christians have been murdered in the past 2000 years, 45 million of which occurred in the last century alone!

If “The Passion of the Christ” is so troubling, then why hasn’t there been an uproar over the recent film, “The Gospel of John”?  After all, it uses virtually every word of the Gospel, including words deemed offensive by critics of the Gibson film.  Why was there no big hullabaloo over “Jesus Christ Superstar”?; it depicted what one reviewer called a “demonic Caiaphas.”  Is it because Mel Gibson is a so-called traditional Catholic?  And if so, what exactly does this have to do with proclamations of violence?  For Foxman, it is not hard to connect the dots: “I think he’s [Gibson] infected—seriously infected—with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views.  [Gibson’s] got classical anti-Semitic views.”

If the movie is likely to engender violence, then we should expect that when people finish watching it, they will be in a rage.  But no one who has seen the film has experienced anything like anger.  Even Foxman has acknowledged as much: “As the lights came up, the silence was etched with stifled sobs and tears.  The 3,000 Christian pastors, leaders, students and others who attended the preview of the film’s graphic portrayal of the events leading up to the Crucifixion were visibly moved by the images that brought them closer than they may ever have been to bearing witness to the Passion of Jesus.”  Not exactly the kind of sentiment we would expect from Christians ready to act on their latent anti-Semitism.

Some, like Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, have said the movie has already provoked anti-Semitism; he cites bigoted phone calls and letters.  But it must also be said that hate speech has been directed at the Catholic League as well.  Indeed, at a rally against the movie, I had a Brooklyn rabbi tell me to my face that “your gospels are pornographic.”  Now I would no more blame Jews for this anti-Catholic outburst than Jews victimized by Catholic bigots should blame Catholics.

No doubt there will be anti-Semitic bigots in the Christian community who will like “The Passion of the Christ.”  But they will like it for all the wrong reasons, none of which finds support in contemporary Christian thought.  The idea that all Jews at the time of Christ’s death clamored for his crucifixion is historically wrong and patently bigoted: those who ascribe to notions of collective guilt are demented.  The idea that any Jew today is somehow responsible for the behavior of some Jews 2000 years ago is even more insane.

Foxman, along with ADL consultant Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, said after viewing the film, “What we saw makes a mockery of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.”  I will stand with Catholic theologian Michael Novak: “Gibson’s film is wholly consistent with the Second Vatican Council’s presentation of the relations of Judaism and the Christian Church.”  Let it be said that reasonable people can disagree about this, but what cannot be tolerated is casting aspersions on “church-going Christians.”

I am no stranger to the fight against anti-Semitism.  I have joined with the ADL in publicly denouncing Louis Farrakhan; I have gone to Harlem at the request of the Jewish Action Alliance to condemn the hatred of the late Nation of Islam official, Khalid Muhammad; I have joined Norman Siegel, previously of the New York Civil Liberties Union, in denouncing the anti-Semitism that occurred during the controversy over the Brooklyn Museum of Art (he denounced the anti-Catholicism that took place); when a Jewish-led boycott of the Jewish Museum was organized to protest art trivializing the Holocaust, I asked Catholics to support it; in December I joined with Norm Siegel and others to publicly condemn a rash of violence against synagogues in Brooklyn and Queens.  And on January 20, at the behest of Americans for a Safe Israel, I wrote a letter to Israeli Knesset members pledging support for “a safe and secure Israel.”

Before closing, please understand that many Christians deeply resent the kinds of movies Hollywood has been releasing over the last few decades.  They especially resent the long list of anti-Christian films that have been made (most of which have been explicitly anti-Catholic).  And now that they finally have a film they can be proud of, some are calling them bigots, if not thugs.

Christian-Jewish relations have improved markedly over the past few decades, and in this regard no one has been more influential than Pope John Paul II.  It would not only be unfortunate—it would be a travesty—if the reaction to a film about the death of Jesus were to undo the good that has been done.  I pray it will not.

(1/2004)

Part 1: General Catholic Church Coverage

January 2002-December 2003  

Columnists

• Dick Ryan:  “The laity must begin to convince those Catholics who seem asleep that their church is in a terminal crisis that involves everybody.  It can no longer be enough to ‘hit the rail’ on Sunday and piously say the rosary, while the abuse of authority and position continues to be a blemish on the face of the church.” (“Bishop’s Response to Questions Is More PR,” 11/18/03)

• Paul Vitello: “The Diocese of Rockville Centre, like many dioceses all over the United States, would walk through hell itself rather than tell. … If you were a person with a sexual appetite for child abuse and sadism, the priesthood was a good bet for you. … Most priests are not sexual predators.  And there are sexual predators in other lines of work besides the priesthood.  But for many years, the hierarchy of the diocese of Rockville Centre knew the names of just about every sexual predator who wore the collar in its parishes—and never once turned one over to the law.” (“Battle of the Legal Gladiators,” 11/4/03)

• Bob Keeler:  “My attitude is to rejoice in John Paul’s breakthroughs on Jewish-Catholic relations (accomplishment enough for any pope), to forgive him his flaws, and to pray that future popes will heal the hurts that his sometimes tyrannical papacy has caused women, theologians, sexual-abuse victims, gay folks and others.” (“The Legacy of a Great Pope Is a Mixed Blessing,” 10/20/03)

• Jimmy Breslin:  On Pope John Paul II:  “As he sits in a wheelchair, tilted over, these minions scurry about and announce that his mind is more brilliant than ever, his judgments swift and sound—when the last years of this pope have come down to five issues:  Poland, Poland, Poland, abortion and contraception.” (“Mystery That Can’t Be Divined,” 10/19/03)
• Ellis Henican:  On Mother Teresa’s beatification: “I hate to ruin a good party, especially with all the bad news the church has had.  But I just hope we don’t have another Christopher on our hands.” (“Too Swift to Sainthood,” 10/15/03)
• Dennis Duggan:  “The St. Patrick’s Day Parade…is run by old, beefy men who have rules for everyone, and God help you if you don’t abide by them.  They are the Magdalene sisters of parades.” (“Old Parades, Give Way,” 10/14/03)
• Bob Keeler:  “Among other things, critics believe John Paul’s centralization of the church has smothered the collegial relationship between the bishop of Rome and his brother bishops.” (“A Quarter Century of John Paul II: A Giant Among Popes,” 10/12/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The pope announced that gays are gravely immoral.  They are put on earth by God, but this old man can put on a big pope’s high hat and condemn them.”  (“Stranger Isn’t Needed,” 8/3/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  On Cardinal Edward Egan: “He acts as if he has done nothing to betray us with his arrogant covering up of pedophiles in Hartford [sic; Cardinal Egan was bishop of Bridgeport]; that he has not disgraced all Catholics.” (“A Collection Conundrum,” 5/12/02)

• Paul Vitello:  “The issue…is a self-protecting silence at the core that permits children to be hurt.  In the Catholic Church, it has meant sending predatory priests from one parish to another without warning because, on the advice of counsel, disclosure might lead to lawsuits.” (“Playing the Legal Book,” 9/28/03)

•  Dennis Duggan:  “The Catholic Church has gone the way of the big corporate honchos who cheated their stockholders, holding them in the same disdain that the church hierarchy holds its faithful.” (“Few Tears Are Shed,” 8/26/03)
• Marie Cocco:  “New York is, after all, a state where kowtowing to the cardinal is a practiced political art.  Where finding deep meaning in the seating of pols at the annual Al Smith benefit dinner for Catholic causes is a local Kremlinology.” (“Anti-Catholic Slur on Schumer Has No Basis,” 8/14/03)

• Jimmy Breslin:  The bishops “strut around with these big crosses hanging on chains around their necks.  Also on that chain they might hang a photo, a new one every week, of a child molested by one of their priests.” (“What a Church Should Be,” 7/27/03)
• Dick Ryan:  “Postpone, delay, stall and string along—the safe and sanctified side of silence in the Catholic Church.” (“Murphy Needs to Respond to Laity Complaints,” 6/26/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  On the clergy scandal, “Egan could care less.  He only wants to protect the priests, but in reality he only wants to protect himself and his job now and the one he wants next, over in Rome.” (“Royal Stench of Arrogance,” 6/12/03)

•  Sheryl McCarthy:  “Hundreds, perhaps thousands of children, women, male seminarians, even nuns were sexually abused and had their lives ruined by priests, while the bishops looked the other way.  They used the same tactics that are used by organized crime. … Petty drug sellers languish in prison while the seedy bishops go free.” (“Bishops, Drug Felons Show Fickleness of Justice,” 6/5/03)
  
• Dick Ryan:  The youth “must become actively involved with prophetic new groups such as Voice of the Faithful, which have been described as the first authentic religious order of the 21^st century. … But with the ban on Voice of the Faithful in many dioceses and the recent prohibition against priests meeting in Brooklyn, the young must be prepared to be criticized or perhaps even condemned by leaders in a church that has regressed from the Church Paralyzed of 2002 to the Church Paranoid of 2003.”  (“Catholic Church Needs to Hear from Its Young,” 3/25/03)
• Dennis Duggan:  Robert Rygor was the “first gay man to try to march with a banner in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, which is still mired in bigotry, run by dinosaurs, and tied to a church that has disgraced itself by covering up for wayward priests who sexually abused those who trusted them the most.” (“Still Behind Barrier Son Fought to Break,” 3/18/03)
• Bob Keeler:  In defense of Fr. Charles Papa, accused of perusing porn sites:  “A tiny minority of right-wing zealots has been waging a tenacious guerrilla struggle in the Catholic Church for years. … They’re always ready to spy, disrupt, and report to higher authority those they see as less than orthodox.” (“In Sad Times for Church, the Spies Have It,” 3/17/03)
• Jimmy Breslin telephoned the Catholic League making wild accusations.  He charged that Bill Donohue was as bad as accused priest Msgr. Alan Placa. (2/12/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The district attorney of Nassau County, Denis Dillon, wrote a letter toNewsday saying that of course I was wrong about his bishop, Mansion Murphy. … That is some public servant, Dillon; he goes around in place of doing the people’s work and backbites in the name of the church.  Slips around in some strange fringe organization, Opus Dei, which sounds like soapsuds but is not nearly as useful. … For the new year, I am buying him vestments, and they will be needed because I am going to Rome and I am going to have the name officially changed to the Divine Denis.” (“Fitting a DA For Divine Vestments,” 12/31/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “The pope of Rome, on whose watch all of this has happened, has decreed that in January they will say a right-to-life Mass.   This is what the pope, stubborn old pope, and the slip-and-slide schemers around him have decided to use as a distraction from the sex scandals.  They have no idea that this is a tired subject with Americans, particularly women.  It can only raise their fury at an old man in a wheelchair, surrounded by fawning white-haired men in dresses, demanding to control a woman’s body.” (“Spirit of Holiday Stolen by the Church,” 12/24/02)
• Paul Vitello:  “What happened to turn an institution such as the Catholic Church into a virtual sanctuary for pedophiles? … Bishops and cardinals have apologized for their failure to protect the young (after years of denial and dissembling) but they have never actually explained what happened, never held an extended news conference to answer questions and explain their views in simple language, never bought airtime on national TV to speak directly to the country’s 61 million Catholics.”  (“Their Sanctuary of Silence,” 12/8/02)
• Bob Keeler:  “In the furor over the malfeasance of the nation’s Catholic bishops in the sexual-abuse scandal, it is easy to forget their longer-term failings as teachers.  Compared with the scandal, that scandal is much less sensational—almost invisible in the secular press.  But it really matters.” (“Catholic Bishops Fail in Their Teaching Roles,” 11/18/02)
• Sheryl McCarthy:  On Halloween costumes, “A Catholic priest’s costume would also be a crowd pleaser this year, replete with clerical collar and lascivious grin.” (“Scary Monsters Are So Passé This Halloween,” (10/24/02)
• Dick Ryan:  The “Vatican response is a sanctimonious sham, shielding and again hiding several of those in the hierarchy who not only allowed the scandal to fester but, far more criminal, gave license to a few ordained misfits to go out and molest little boys at will.” (“The Vatican Should Honor Thy Laity,” 10/22/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “These people who protest the church are not against a religion based on Christ.  They just don’t want their children and grandchildren abused at choir practice.” (“Faithful To Kids, Christ,” 8/27/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “That there have been no protests is because of the simple rule of this church:  If you dare disagree you go to hell.” (“Taking back Their Church,” 7/21/02)
  
• Bob Keeler:  “Many Catholics think that God is already answering the prayers for male, celibate priests, and the answer is: No!” (“Asides,” 6/30/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “The Catholic Church, led by unctuous, arrogant men, could easily wind up being half the size it is now.” (“Principal Stands on Her Principles,” 6/23/02)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “I got on a flight in Dallas and I announced, ‘Boy, what fat slobs those bishops are.’”  (“Get Serious About Battle of the Bulge,” 6/20/02)
• Dick Ryan:  The bishops “would presumably like the Catholic Church to return to business as usual while piously suggesting that Catholics put the entire scandal out of their minds like some dirty little impure thought.” (“Bishops Can’t Ignore Laity’s Cries for Change,” 6/20/02)
  
• Marie Cocco:  “The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops needed to end the agony they’d caused themselves.  They did it the way corrupt politicians who wish to cling to power inevitably do, once the spinners convince them there is no choice.  The churchmen came up with a quick fix that looks pretty good on paper and may, or may not, work in practice. … [The victims] have been twice abused, once by the men who violated their bodies and twisted their psyches, and again by the institution that refused until now to treat life-altering horrors as anything but embarrassments to be covered up. … The number of diocesan priests in the United States has been dropping since 1965…. Pick your explanation.  But among those offered by church scholars is the aversion of today’s young men to the vow of celibacy and the ban on marriage.  Even if these were to remain pillars of the church, the shortage could be eased with the ordination of women.  But the bar against women priests stands, another sex policy perpetuated no matter the consequence. ” (“‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy at Least Looks Good,” 6/18/02)
  
• Paul Vitello:  “The bishops were guilty of protecting their boys, the priests—and sacrificing children on the altar of good appearances. … The bishops…issued no new policy regarding themselves. … They addressed the sins of others.  And then, after voting to adopt their new rules, they stood up and applauded themselves.  That apparently is the style of the church.” (“Odd Notion Of Whom to Protect,” 6/18/02)
•  Jimmy Breslin:  “The Vatican could not start the day without the money from America. And yet those in the Vatican dislike America and demand that the Catholics here live under laws that were originally written with a quill pen or on parchment, if they ever were written.  Rome makes mistakes. Rome is less than forthcoming. Rome doesn’t tell the truth.  Yet Rome rules.” (“Will Rome Ignore Dallas?” 6/16/02)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The meeting was conducted by Call to Action, a coalition of Catholics who are irritated, angered, disgusted by the way the church hierarchy has maimed their faith. … A couple of weeks ago, [Bishop Wilton Gregory] was viewed on a stage at the Vatican.  On that occasion he failed his magic class when he tried to say that the American Bishops have accomplished much when they did absolutely nothing. … Later, the thick green wall of New York’s Irish church hierarchy came out with the startling statement that priests should not abuse infants.” (“Dissenters Make Their Case,” 6/14/02)

• Carol Richards:  Comparing the clergy scandal to teacher/student sex abuse: “What distinguishes this 1997 case from those that are haunting the Catholic Church today is that the wrongdoers were caught within months and punished.  And therein lies a lesson for America’s cardinals as they plan their June meeting in Dallas to decide how to deal with the scandal…. Once teachers lose their certification, they can no longer teach in New York.  And – cardinals, please note – New York swaps names with the 49 other states in a national clearinghouse so that bad apples can’t just move and keep on abusing kids.” (“Cardinals Can Learn from the Schools,” 5/5/02)

• Paul Vitello:  On Nassau County DA Denis Dillon: “Dillon has a constitutionally guaranteed right to his attitude about priests and the Catholic Church.  But he does not necessarily have a right to bring that attitude to work as a public official charged with protecting all citizens. … This is a don’t-ask-don’t-tell approach to priestly abuse. … [The letter written by Denis Dillon to State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, stating accused priests are mostly homosexuals and not pedophiles] is an interesting letter, revealing interesting assumptions about sexuality and sexual abuse, which happens to mirror church doctrine, which is probably wrong on all counts.  But let that go.  He cites studies.  He quotes Latin.  It is very erudite.  But in reality, it is the letter of a church apologist, which is Denis Dillon’s every right as an American to be.  But he should not be in charge of investigating allegations against priests.” (“The Wrong Man For This Job,” 4/30/02) 
  
• Paul Vitello:  “To hire a PR firm usually requires of a client three basic conditions:  to be caught dead to rights in scandal, to have lots of money and to be determined against all odds to live in denial.  The church qualifies.” (“The Church’s PR Nightmare,” 4/28/02)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “And if they start getting rid of homosexuals, as they seem bent on doing, what with all these attacks by men in red hats, there will be mornings around New York when your aunt is going to have to say mass. … In the Vatican at this hour, a room full of old men, the supposed shepherds, were plotting how to present a large lie of omission to the American people. …  The papers the cardinals worked on all day and then would try to shove down Catholic throats should be their last.” (“They Need a Lesson in Proper Confession,” 4/25/02)
  
• Marie Cocco:  According to a CBS News poll, “About half of the nation’s Catholics said they believe the church today is ‘out of touch’ with their needs.  It is not clear what that means.  Out of touch on birth control?  On divorce?  On Women?  On celibacy?  Or just pedophilia”?  (“Cardinals are missing a talk with their most faithful; Alas, they look inward,” 4/25/02)

• Sheryl McCarthy:  “The celibacy requirement is unique to Catholicism, and in no other religious group has there been a sexual abuse problem of these dimensions.  Celibacy requires priests to fight powerful natural urges, and those who can’t or won’t do that, at the risk of facing public disgrace, prey on the people over whom they have control, which means minors.” (“The Church Stumbles to Lay Blame on Gays,” 4/25/02)

• Paul Vitello:  “The pope says nothing about the role of his cardinals and his bishops…in allowing ‘the abuse of the young’ to flourish throughout the world.” (“Holy See Still Has Its Blinders On,” 4/25/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:   “These cardinals will say anything, cling to any piece of driftwood and hide anywhere, but never mention that the problem is in their lying, covering up their people as they do so. … Rather than accountability, the cardinals yesterday seemed to spend much time on the ‘one strike’ rule for priests involved in sex abuse.  Fourteen or 16 or so white-haired unmarried men defining sex and the family for us.  Wonderful.” (“Cardinals Strike Out At Vatican Meeting,” 4/24/02)
  
•  Jimmy Breslin:  On Pope John Paul II: “Age and illness have left him with an instinctive dislike of anything to do with women.” (“Pain of Abused Lost in Wisps of Vatican Fog,” 4/23/02)

• Dennis Duggan:  “The mob is not the Catholic Church, and no one wants to suggest that.  But there is a lesson to be learned here.  The similarities are inescapable when you look at two ancient, far-flung organizations historically controlled by local bosses who report only to a distant leader. … The pope has been far more concerned with what he regards as the evil of abortion, so far directing much of his passion toward children yet to be born and not those being victimized by the fathers of their churches.” (“This Thing of Theirs Has Gone Too Far,” 4/17/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:  Pope John Paul II “called the cardinals to Rome because on his best days I don’t think he ever knew where America was. … The pope dislikes this country, as do all the bitter little old Italian men surrounding him.  The pope and his lackeys see New York as sinful.” (“Bishop Breslin Seizes the Day,” 4/16/02)

• Sheryl McCarthy:  “All the old, self-serving men in the Catholic Church who, while sparks of sexual abuse by the priests in their charge were flickering all around them, bobbed and weaved and hid the evidence, and fiddled until now the whole church is going up in flames. … [The bishops] run a huge bureaucracy that’s more concerned with protecting its reputation and hiding ugly secrets than with the pain of the children and teenagers who were picked off by these priests, and of their families.” (“Church Needs to Do Some Serious Spring Cleaning,” 4/15/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:   “This is the largest institution on earth, and it is in the most trouble in its modern history.  A few women could have saved them, but it is an all-male institution that hates and fears women.” (“Of Mortality And Morality,” 4/11/02)

• Paul Vitello:  “To date, no bishop, no cardinal and no pope has made a real address to the victims of the untold number of criminal Catholic priests who were shuffled around the country—for decades—to new fields of criminal opportunity.  All to spare the church the serious work of self-examination.” (“Unbelievable Noise in Church,” 3/26/02)
  
• Ellis Henican:  On the actions of Church leaders: “Hide.  Avoid.  Stay Quiet.  Issue the flattest possible platitudes.  ‘Mysterium iniquitatis!’  Pope John Paul II finally roared from Rome yesterday.”  (“Doleful Book Of Revelation,” 3/22/02)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “I qualify as the next bishop because I am not a pedophile. … The loyal parishioners will not have to worry about Bishop Breslin chasing little boys. He hates them and they hate him.  Nor will he stalk women.” (“You can just kiss my ring,” 3/21/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “[Cardinal] Egan was in the cathedral pulpit at the annual St. Patrick’s Day Mass.  His homily suggested that he was numb.  He cloaked himself in the firefighters and cops and everybody else in the World Trade Center catastrophe to keep the word pedophile out of all minds. … The man betrayed Catholics, and the Irish, and he puts on his red hat. … [Nell McCafferty, a friend of Breslin’s] called to say, ‘I wanted to give [Cardinal Egan] a kiss and tell him I’m gay and marching right along and how are you with the pedophiles?  Oh, and we just passed an abortion bill in Ireland.  You are losing the whole thing.’” (“A Betrayal of Catholics, Irish,” 3/17/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “This is the church that has the confessional box as one of its core beliefs, and yet the bishops and cardinals stand out on the steps and defend, deny, dispute, lie, hide, bury and omit. … Either the pedophiles were this way before they entered the priesthood, finding it a good place to hide their faults, or they were twisted by the doctrine of celibacy. ” (“Celibacy Doesn’t Stand a Prayer,” 3/14/02)
  
• Sheryl McCarthy:  “Because the church hierarchy, from the pope on down to the bishops, has conspired to cover up these scandals and keep the offending priests in circulation, the church’s credibility has been badly damaged.” (“Catholics Must Examine Crisis in Priesthood,” 3/14/02)
  
• Carol Richards:  On voucher schools: “They’re Catholic schools, not Muslim, and the girls wear cute plaid skirts, not graceful head scarves—but the gimmick that advocates cite for their supposed constitutionality is that vouchers can be used at any nonpublic school and so don’t violate the First Amendment ban on establishment of a religion.  It is ironic that the pitch for vouchers has reached the nation’s highest court just as Americans have been made forcefully aware by the September 11 terrorist attacks that the religious indoctrination of school children can breed poisonous hatred.” (“State Shouldn’t Subsidize Religious Schools,” 3/10/02)
• Paul Vitello:  On Nassau County DA Denis Dillon’s Catholicism, “This is Enron asking Arthur Andersen to investigate its books.” (“A Crime Hardly on the Record,” 3/10/02)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The priests and bishops around here form a white conservative church that speaks in whispers against capital punishment, if at all, because they really want it.  Then they roar against abortion and even birth control. … But the speed and ease with which you bring the cardinal and his associates out when the matter is about women is an indictment of a church of men who are either bald or white-haired and who either don’t know or don’t care a wit about women.” (“They’ve Lost Touch with Jesus’ Ways,” 2/7/02)

 Contributors:

• Seth Armus, professor of history, St. Joseph’s College:  “As a historian, I am wary of proclaiming about the legacy of a still-ruling pope.  One need only remember Pius XII, a hero at the time of his death in 1958 who today is held in rather lower esteem.  One wonders, in particular, about how history will regard preaching against condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa.” (“A Global Champion of All of Humanity,” 10/15/03)
  
• Jacqueline Burt Wang, freelance writer:  “I left the faith myself.  Part of me wanted to shake some sense into the reverent folks around me, list every misdeed of the Catholic Church in chronological order and stop them from turning a blind eye to the flaws of their creed.” (“This Believer Reached Her Statute of Limitations,” 9/23/03)
  
• Fenton Johnson, author and visiting professor, University of California: “The struggles of…gays and lesbians everywhere are less religious than political, which is both troubling and inspiring.  Troubling because the far right has so successfully appropriated Jesus’ story and the label ‘Christian’ that these are in danger of losing altogether their connections to their roots.  But inspiring because they present us with the challenge to reclaim Jesus and his message.” (“On Gay Issues, ‘Right’ Has Stolen Christianity,” 8/4/03)

• Caitlin Marinelli, High School student:  “I know the church hierarchy protected pedophile priests with the same fervor that they protected Nazi war criminals…. Church history is replete with anti-Semitism.” (“It’s Ignorance,” 7/7/03)
• Bill Nemitz, columnist, Portland Press Herald:  On Cardinal Law’s resignation: “Did the prospect of financial ruin push Rome’s well-insulated panic button in a way the litany of unspeakable sins—beasts, disguised as priests, preying on the most vulnerable among their flocks—somehow could not?  Was it the criminal justice system?  Did the vision of Law sitting before a Massachusetts grand jury (or, even worse, a trial jury) persuade his superiors that earthly justice has at last trumped papal infallibility?”  (“After Cardinal Law, The Church Quakes,” 12/15/02)
  
• Jack Miles, author and senior advisor to president of J. Paul Getty Trust:  “In October 1962, when Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, millions of Catholics hoped for a change in the teaching that holds abortion as a crime equivalent to murder and artificial birth control a crime equivalent to abortion.” (“The Church Needs New Direction,” 5/6/02)
• Kevin Farrell, freelance writer:  “The good priests of your youth are forgotten, and all you’re left with is a revulsion, a nausea, over self-righteous hypocrites who never opted for women priests in the rectory (which almost anybody would forgive compared to the felonies of pedophilia) but who chose to attack children.” (“School Days of Scowling Nuns, Smiling Priests,” 5/1/02)

• Mark D. Jordan, professor in the Religion Department of Emory University:  “The Catholic Church is and has long been both loudly homophobic and intensely homoerotic.  Our public discussions of priestly sexuality won’t make any progress until we can begin to talk about the homoeroticism written into Catholic imagination and its institutions.” (“The Forbidden Question,” 4/28/02)
  
• Nell Merlino, representative from the Ms. Foundation:  “And when it comes to women and girls being heard, some very powerful men are still not listening.  The Catholic Church, which bars women from leadership, is spinning out of control with multi-million dollar sex scandals across the United States and around the globe.” (“Ten Years Later, Girls Still Need Their Own Day,” 4/18/02)
  
• Laura Ahearn, author and executive director of Parents For Megan’s Law:  “In this century, we have the Catholic Church being resistant to the reporting of child abuse.  It claims that such reporting might compromise the sacramental seal of confession.  Just as physicians were previously resistant to putting children’s safety first, the Catholic Church is doing the same.  And Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon is in the church’s corner. … The Catholic Church and any other clergy cannot be exempt because that leaves children too vulnerable and puts the church above the law.  Mandated reporting for clergy doesn’t go far enough.  If we really want to put children first, we will require any people in pastoral roles in any places of worship to be licensed by the state so they can be carefully monitored in their roles with children—as other professionals are.”  (“Society Must Put Children’s Safety First,” 4/16/02)

Part II:  Long Island Bishop William F. Murphy

January 2002-December 2003

Columnists

• Dick Ryan:  “The bishop’s response to three long evenings of troubling questions about agonizing issues are at best bland and disingenuous and at worst condescending and coldly hypocritical. … And that is also why his 8,000-word exercise should be the last straw for outraged Catholics who are now officially leaderless and who, along with the priests and the national hierarchy, must begin to take it to another level if the church is to survive the scandal of countless priest predators and the shenanigans of a few bitter old men. … Unless [Bishop Murphy] has the grace, and good sense, to step down and walk away from all of it, the only way he can do any true shepherding is to come down from the tower, drop the innocuous PR statements and talk openly and honestly, face to face, with all of the people.” (“Bishop’s Response to Questions Is More PR,” 11/18/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  Pope John Paul II “has ignored the monstrous scandals of priests attacking children in thousands of cases in America.  Only rotting at the top can explain, locally, William Mansion Murphy in Long Island.  The Vatican doesn’t care.  The faithful here believe silence is the easiest way.  Meanwhile, Murphy is going to be infamous forever as the man who came down from Boston, the home of pedophiles he was supposed to supervise, and threw nuns out of a building and set up a castle for himself.  He lives forever as Mansion Murphy through a book that has been written, a stage play under way and a probable movie about him.” (“Mystery That Can’t be Divined,” 10/19/03)
•  Dick Ryan:  “When he’s not silencing his priests or distancing himself from his parishioners, Bishop William Murphy occasionally indulges in some classic church speak.”  (“Let’s Not Misinterpret What Catholics Desire,” 9/30/03)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “[Bishop Thomas] Daily came down here from Boston with William ‘Mansion’ Murphy, both hideous failures in the sex scandals. … And Mansion Murphy is the outgoing bishop of Rockville Centre.  If he had any shame, he would be out of here by nightfall.”  (“Stranger Isn’t Needed,” 8/3/03)

• Jimmy Breslin:  “How do you like it if you’re a Catholic and they make your bishop the central figure in a report on pedophiles?  … I cannot understand why, today, right now Mansion Murphy of Rockville Centre dares to remain on church grounds after all he has done to place children in jeopardy.” (“What A Church Should Be,” 7/27/03)

• Jimmy Breslin: On Bishop Murphy’s residence: “The kitchen cost something like $220,000, the money for which came from such collections of the faithful in the parishes of the diocese as the Bishop’s Appeal.  ‘Send money to keep Mansion Murphy eating big thick roast beef!’”  Newsday made two corrections to this article.  Breslin reported that the luncheon took place at “Mansion Murphy’s dining room,” when in fact it did not.  He said there was a Franciscan in attendance, and that it occurred on Ascension Thursday.  It was a Dominican in attendance, and it occurred on a Saturday. ” (“Royal Stench of Arrogance,” 6/12/03)
• Dick Ryan:  “If Catholics and their priests are to be truly ‘catholic’ and ‘church’ in the profoundly honest meaning of those two words, they must first avoid the two extremes of being obsessed with Bishop Murphy and his behavior or ignoring him as just another statue in church or part of the furniture.  Instead, they must forgive him for some of his stubborn truculence in the face of so much pain.” (“Needs Priest-Parishioner Partnership,” 5/15/03)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “His career in his church consists of being a central figure in the largest scandal the American Catholic Church has had, with priests as pedophiles and bishops as pimps….” (“Betrayed by a Family Friend,” 2/13/03)
• Dick Ryan:  “I’ll say this for the 2003 Bishop’s Annual Appeal that arrived in the mail last week from Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre:  The timing is all wrong.  Mailed out one year after the first revelations of rampant child abuse in the priesthood, the timing has all the sensitivity of an ant. … I will be sending my ‘appeal’ money to my pastor…because pastors and their priests shouldn’t have to be penalized for the evasiveness or shoddy bookkeeping of a few bishops. … Perhaps if Bishop Murphy converted his residence into a homeless shelter or a hospice for AIDS patients, some of that old trust might be restored.” (“Diocese Money Appeal Doesn’t Merit Support,” 1/14/03)
• Jimmy Breslin:  Murphy “threw nuns out and the diocese spent—what, $5 million?—to make over the place, including creating personal living quarters out of the top floor of the huge, great former convent.  He could have put about three dozen apartments in there for people to live, but he wants to be alone. … Mansion Murphy told somebody I know who works for him that there was a big shipment of china and glasses for his dinner parties coming and he didn’t want it delivered directly to his mansion.  He said this was because Breslin goes through his garbage.” (“Fitting a DA for Divine Vestments,” 12/31/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  Bishop Murphy “has just spent $5 million and more to rebuild his surroundings, including a full floor of a building that once was a convent but now is the place where he keeps a $210,000 kitchen and a wine cooler of red and white at different temperatures, the better to entertain. … The bishop is one of those who stole the spirit out of all of this and all other days of a Catholic’s life.  Because of this, even on this holiday, the name of the bishop is Mansion Murphy”  (“Spirit of Holiday Stolen by Church,” 12/24/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “While Mansion Murphy’s mansion is extraordinarily expensive, the Diocese of Rockville Centre spent untold amounts on secret payments to victims of sexual abuse by priests. … Just about all of this came from the collection basket, the money of people who get up in the morning and earn it.” (“Out In The Cold As Wine Chills,” 11/24/02) 
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “In honor of Christ, Mansion Murphy has a mansion that has room for 36 apartments. … The building was once a convent.  He threw out the nuns to make room for himself. … Christ walked on foot.  Mansion Murphy likes cars.  Rather than have one bishop’s car, he has several cars so that he can have auto relay races with himself.  Sensational! … He was at the bishops conference in Washington.  The usual 400 white-haired old men in black dresses tried making rules about child molestation.  Mansion Murphy was heard.  He asked if any new guidelines would mean that he was legally and financially responsible for sexual molestation cases out of his diocese.  That is exactly what he cared about.  There are a lot of poor people who were hurt by priests under his direction here and in Boston but the last thing on his mind is a victim.” (“At Home In His Greed,” 11/17/02)
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The bishop in Rockville Centre, Murphy, makes a high art of foolishness.  He is rebuilding a great former convent, a place that could hold 36 apartments, into his residence.  He spends fortunes of parishioners’ money to rebuild the place.  He is criticized for greed, and meets this with a remarkable lack of shame.”  (“Church Gets It Wrong Again,” 10/1/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The bishop of the diocese, William Murphy, refused to allow this group of Catholics [Voice of the Faithful] to use a Catholic church…Murphy is one of the three Irish bishops down from New England who run the New York area.  All arrived with questionable backgrounds in handling the sex cases. … Murphy has grabbed the huge convent building, chasing the nuns out to anywhere they can find.” (“An Appeal to the Bishop,” 9/15/02)
• Dick Ryan:  “Whether its next meeting is held at Shea Stadium or the roof of a Home Depot, the Voice of the Faithful on Long Island is not about to be shut up or shut out.  But it would be sad indeed if the only things shut were the minds of some bishops who still cling feverishly to the waning glory days of pomp and power within the hierarchy.  And sadder still if Bishop William Francis Murphy, ordained shepherd, truly believes that his flock is the enemy.” (“Bishop’s Meeting Ban Can’t Silence LI Flock,” 8/14/02)
  
• Bob Keeler:  On Bishop Murphy’s plan to invite Nigerian nuns to New York to pray for vocations: “Now the bishop has chosen to fly to Nigeria to pursue his vision, instead of attending this weekend’s celebration by Catholic Charities: people living out the Gospel by serving the poor.  His priorities seem misplaced.” (“Asides,” 6/30/02) 
  
• Jimmy Breslin:  “As for Bishop Murphy of Long Island, the new garage behind his castle at St. Agnes Cathedral in Rockville Centre is almost done.  Soon, a fleet of cars will have a roof.  His name forever shall be Mansion Murphy.”  (“Dissenters Make Their Case,” 6/14/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “With Law going, the three men around here, Cardinal Egan in Manhattan, Bishop Daily in Brooklyn and Bishop Murphy in Rockville Centre, should get plane tickets.  Daily and Murphy were in Boston with Law at the time that pedophiles were transferred from one parish to another.”  (“The Hierarchy of Decency,” 5/19/02)
• Dick Ryan: On Bishop Murphy’s hiring of a PR spokesman: “Bishop Murphy has shunted his public relations staff aside and gone for the glamour name.  So it is obvious that he is trying to manipulate, instead of communicate, in fixing the enormous credibility gap that now exists in the church.” (“Diocese Should Tell Truth, Without PR Spin,” 5/15/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  On pedophile John Geoghan: “Each time there was a complaint about him, the bosses of the Boston archdiocese, Law and Bishop Thomas Daily and Bishop William Murphy…moved Geoghan to another parish.”   The following day Newsday issued a correction noting Bishop Murphy has said he was not aware of church leaders shifting Geoghan from parish to parish. (“Bishop Breslin:  Time to Step In,” 5/9/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “Straight east, out in Rockville Centre, the bishop, Murphy, has hired a public relations man, Howard Rubenstein, for what I’m told is at least $250,000 for a couple of months to make him look good after all the bad he’s done.  That figure is not as high as what Murphy has them spending on his new residence, an entire four-story building that could be used for 36 apartments, and a four-car garage to go with it.” (“Close to God in Bushwick,” 4/30/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “The bishop, Murphy, was just here from Boston, where he has been in charge of assigning priests.  The major part of that work appears to have been the shifting of pedophiles around as if they were substitutes in a game.” (“Greed That Can Move Mountains,” 4/18/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  “Thomas V. Daily and William Murphy, two of our bishops, got into hideous trouble over covering up pedophiles.  Daily and Murphy transferred a priest named Geoghan each time he drew sex abuse charges in a parish.  They transferred him four times, the last to a parish where he was in charge of altar boys and two other youth groups.”  (“A Betrayal of Catholics, Irish,” 3/17/02)
• Jimmy Breslin:  The “Rev. John Geoghan…seemed to be the personal charge of Bishop Murphy.  Geoghan was transferred from parish to parish in order to cover up his crimes….” (“Celibacy Doesn’t Stand a Prayer,” 3/14/02)  

Recent Catholic League Material on Newsday

• IS NEWSDAY ANTI-CATHOLIC? VOTE IN CATHOLIC LEAGUE POLL(4/28/04)
• LAST-DITCH ATTEMPT TO SMEAR BISHOP MURPHY  (2/11/04)
• CHECKMATE: NEWSDAY AND VOICE OF THE FAITHFUL  (1/12/04)
• CATHOLIC MALCONTENTS ATTACK BISHOP MURPHY  (12/4/03)
• 6,000 LONG ISLAND CATHOLICS SIGN PETITION IN SUPPORT OF BISHOP MURPHY 9/25/03)
• CATHOLICS RALLY TO SUPPORT BISHOP MURPHY  (7/29/03)
• GANGING UP ON BISHOP MURPHY  (7/24/03)
• JIMMY BRESLIN SEEKS TO MALIGN CATHOLIC LEAGUE  (2/12/03)
• D.A. SPOTA, GRAND JURY AND NEWSDAY RESIST INCLUSIVE MANDATORY REPORTING BILL  (2/11/03)
• LONG ISLAND PASTORS NOTIFIED OF NEWSDAY‘S DEFENSE OF BRESLIN’S BIGOTRY AND DISTORTIONS  (12/26/02)
• NEWSDAY‘S SHERYL McCARTHY: CLASSIC BIGOT  (10/24/02)
• SHOULD PRACTICING CATHOLICS HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE?  (4/30/02)

Guidelines of the Catholic League

Christmas 2003

This booklet was prepared by Gerard Bradley of the University of Notre Dame School of Law and Robert Lockwood of the Catholic League. It is a guide that we hope will be of use to Catholics, as well as to the general public, regarding what kinds of religious expression are permissible at Christmastime.

William A. Donohue
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Guidelines from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights on the proper means for the religious celebration of Christmas in the public arena

 Introduction

Each year during the Christmas season, there are reports that the religious aspects of Christmas are being banned or omitted from the public arena. These stories can involve anything from threats of legal action over the placing of traditional nativity crèches on public property, to various directives from administrators that eliminate the very mention of the religious aspect of the season from public schools. Such stories can reach ridiculous proportions, as when a city manager in Eugene, Oregon, banned the display of decorated trees on public property. In Vancouver, Washington, transit authorities cited the constitutional separation of church and state in forbidding employees to wear seasonal ties or jewelry that displayed a religious symbol.

There is a tendency to either treat these seasonal stories as something to be laughed at, or to respond to them by assuming that the constitution and court decisions mandate the elimination of the spiritual aspects of Christmas from public life. In many cases, activist organizations employ bullying tactics and threats of lawsuits to attempt to force their private interpretation of the role of religion in public life, particularly within the public school environment. Those who are unaware of the actual legal precedents in these matters and the proper interpretation of the constitution find themselves cowed into submission.

The purpose of this booklet is to outline not only what is permissible, but also what is proper in acknowledging and recognizing the religious aspects of the Christmas season in the public arena. The booklet will provide an overview of the issues involved, and guidelines for civic groups, private organizations and individuals, as well as public school administrators, teachers, and parents.

Overview

Christmas is at its roots a religious celebration. Yet, within American culture there has been a long accretion of secular customs and traditions surrounding the feast, so much so that non-Christians and avowed non-believers celebrate the holiday. At the same time, there has been a growing diversity within American culture. While 86 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, there is a growing non-Christian cultures.

In discussing how to recognize and allow for appropriate celebration of the Christmas season in the public arena, there has always been a certain tension among the religious significance of the celebration, the overwhelming secular traditions of the season, and respect for those for whom Christmas is not a part of their culture or religious faith. In the public arena, there needs to be an understanding of the difference between accommodation of religious belief, and giving the appearance of the establishment of religious belief.

At the same time, there needs to be a sensible understanding of the right to freedom of religious expression, and the right of religious groups, civic organizations and private citizens to use public property in the same fashion allowed to secular organizations. Finally, it must be clearly understood that within a public school environment, the religious aspects of the Christmas season have no less right to expression and recognition than the secular aspects of the season, or non-Christian faiths and cultural celebrations that are recognized and explained within the school year.

The issue of recognizing Christmas in the public arena generally arises in two forms: 1) the display of secular and/or religious seasonal symbols on public property at the expense of either government or private groups; and 2) the treatment of the Christmas season within public schools. Yet, as noted above in Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, the issue can also come up in a host of different ways where the action that is taken is decidedly hostile to religion, or even to the secular observance of the Christmas season. These issues are sometimes raised by administrative fiat resulting from an individual complaint, or under threat of legal action.

Even well meaning people attempting to avoid alleged controversy, or under threats, give in to a view that holds that there is a constitutional requirement that the government be hostile to religion in the public arena, rather than neutral. Such was the case when a public school system in Georgia responded to threats of legal action by ceasing any reference to a “Christmas break” for the traditional period when schools close around the holidays. Though it defied logic and common sense—the break has always been associated and timed for the Christmas season, and will continue as such—this kind of intolerance and censorship of speech have been common. And the response is often complete surrender to the complaint.

There is the unfortunate aspect to much of this discussion about Christmas in the public arena that certain elements within society consider religion—particularly Christianity—to be a divisive, if not dangerous force, in society. Their campaigns are built on intolerance, restriction of free speech and hostility toward religion. They believe that people need protection from religion and religious expression. While they have a right to such views, they do not have the right to treat Christian religious expression as in and of itself a secondary right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed private religious expression to be limited when it could appear to the “reasonable” observer that the government is “endorsing” that expression—meaning that the government appears to agree with or affirm a particular view of religion. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)). Although four members of the Supreme Court have disagreed with use of this “endorsement test” against privately sponsored religious free speech, that test—derived from Allegheny—has not yet been explicitly overruled. (Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)).

The publicly sponsored display of religious symbols in the public arena, however, is a different matter. Worried that publicly sponsored religious displays could reasonably be seen as an endorsement of religion or a particular religion, the Supreme Court has applied a more exacting standard to publicly sponsored displays than private ones. The focus of the guidelines given in this booklet, however, will be on privately sponsored religious expression in the public arena, and religious expression by students or teachers in public schools during the Christmas season.

The display of religious Christmas symbols in the public arena certainly involves a greater understanding and tolerance for different religious traditions within the United States. It is also an opportunity to see that First Amendment rights of religious expression and free speech be guaranteed to all on an equal basis. Openness to religious expression, recognition, and speech in forums that are traditionally open to secular speech is not a violation of separation of church and state, or government seal of approval for any particular religious sect.

State Constitutions

Keep in mind that the guidelines presented in this booklet are based on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Most state constitutions also contain, like the First Amendment, guarantees of non-establishment and free exercise of religion. The non-establishment clause of a state constitution may be more specific in defining what constitutes an “establishment” of religion than the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment. Theoretically, what might be permissible under the First Amendment might also be expressly prohibited by a state constitution. At the same time, a state constitution may not limit or burden the free exercise clause guaranteed by the First Amendment. Whether the two ever conflict is a state-specific determination beyond the scope of this pamphlet. While it is highly unlikely that any state constitution could successfully prohibit a nativity scene that satisfies the federal First Amendment, the concern is one to be kept in mind if litigation might arise.

Forums

In relation to expression or free speech, all public property generally falls under the classification of one or another types of forums: the traditional or open public forum, the limited or designated use forum, and the non-public forum. The classification of a forum critically affects how much the government may limit expression or speech in that forum. As one can see after reviewing the guidelines, the question of whether a court will uphold any given nativity scene display is not easily predictable, nor does it depend on any formulaic rule. Therefore, the guidelines in this booklet are not a sure formula for winning litigation. Rather, they are principles applied by the courts in determining such litigation. By considering these principles, one can erect a nativity display where it is most likely to be upheld and least likely to be struck down.

Guidelines for Private Groups or Individuals Erecting Nativity Scenes on Public Property

I. In which kind of forum will the nativity scene be erected?

A. Traditional/Open Public Forum

1) A traditional/open public forum provides the best protection for nativity scenes.

2) The traditional/open public forum is characterized by being an open public thoroughfare with an objective use of open access (examples: streets, sidewalks, and parks).

3) The government may place objectively reasonable time, place, and manner regulations on the display of the nativity scene so long as the regulations are content-neutral (example: limiting the amount of electricity a display can use for safety reasons).

4) In order to subject a nativity scene to content-based regulations (example: no nativity scenes are allowed because they are religious), the government must show a compelling interest in having the regulations and must show that the regulations are narrowly tailored to that interest.

a) Governments may have a compelling interest in avoiding a situation where a reasonable observer of the situation would conclude that the government was endorsing religion over non-religion, one religion over another, or several religions over others.

b) If a nativity scene or other religious display stands alone in front of a public building, especially a seat of government (example: a courthouse or city hall), courts have often found that such a display would impermissibly give the reasonable observer the impression that the government was endorsing religion—even though the scene was privately sponsored.

c) Secular symbols, such as Christmas trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, and candy canes, if placed prominently around a nativity scene, can downplay what a reasonable observer would otherwise see as a government endorsement of religion.

d) Merely grouping together religious displays (example: a crèche and a menorah) does not solve the endorsement problem. Without secular symbols present, the reasonable observer might still conclude that the government was endorsing several religions over others (example: Christianity and Judaism).

e) Nevertheless, governments may not from the beginning subject a nativity scene or the permission to erect one to more unique rules or a more restrictive application process than the rules or process applicable to any display in the open public forum.

B. Limited/Designated Use Forum

1) The limited/designated use forum is one that the government purposefully makes available to a particular class of persons or for a particular class of uses. (example: the government may open a government-owned area to use by military veterans, or for religious and cultural displays).

2) The limited/designated use forum is just like a traditional/open public forum for all those falling within the class to which the forum was opened. Apply the traditional/open public forum guidelines.

3) The government’s ability to limit use of the forum to a particular class is not unlimited, but the courts have not defined what the limits are. The courts have said that once a limited forum has been created, entries of a similar character to those allowed access may not be excluded. (example: if the forum has been opened to religious displays, nativity scenes may not be excluded).

4) Note that the government simply allowing some speech or expression on public property that is not an open/traditional public forum does not created a limited/designated use forum. The government can keep the forum non-public by allowing selective, permission only access that depends upon non-discretionary judgments (example: x amount of insurance coverage)

C. Non-Public Forum

1) Non-public fora are generally all those government properties that are not traditional/open public fora and have not been made designated/limited use fora.

2) The government can refuse to allow a nativity scene display in a non-public forum when that display would interfere with the objective use to which the property has been dedicated (example: the government may refuse to allow a nativity scene near the runway of an Air Force base because it would distract landing pilots).

 Public Schools

Most people are surprised to discover that the courts have issued few guidelines at all for public schools concerning seasonal religious displays. When the Supreme Court has touched on the issue, it has generally found in favor of religious expression and displays, for example, in favor of allowing the performance of religious music in public school choral performances during the Christmas season, and the performance of public school choirs at religious institutions. While some administrators of public schools—and activist organizations that attempt to bully public schools—will often cite vague references to separation of church and state, there is no legal precedent in this area that bans the display of religious symbols at Christmastime. The reason for this is that courts will not interfere in the educational process. Display of religious symbols, when done even-handedly and without devotional intent, is perfectly legitimate as part of the school’s mission to educate.

Some Christmas symbols—reindeer, Santa Claus, and candy canes, for example, have been viewed by the courts as secular rather than religious symbols of Christmas, and their display is legitimate. Other symbols have been viewed as secular or religious depending on the context. When the Supreme Court has dealt with Christmas trees it has generally viewed them as a secular symbol. Even so, in the specific context of public schools, a lower court has treated a Christmas tree as a religious symbol when it was placed next to religious items from non-Christian faiths. That court seemed to feel that the very name of the Christmas tree evoked the Christian meaning of Christmas when the Christmas tree was placed next to a menorah and Kwanzaa symbols. Menorahs are viewed as mainly religious, but have been considered secular when surrounded by largely secular items. It seems unclear in the courts whether Kwanzaa symbols are religious or secular in nature. Whether the display of these secular-religious symbols is legitimate depends, like the display of nativity scenes, largely on rules of context.

Unfortunately, too many public school authorities have become convinced that any recognition of Christmas violates the separation of church and state, to the point where the use of the word “Christmas” is effectively banned, traditional Christmas carols silenced, and both religious and secular Christmas symbols prohibited. In many areas of the country, there is the imposition within public schools of an essentially pagan “winter solstice” and “winter holiday” celebration while banning all reference to the traditional Christmas celebration. While the display of religious symbols in public schools obviously cannot involve school-sponsored religious ceremonies, the courts have never banned a basic recognition of Christmas—with songs and seasonal activities and displays—within public schools. There is no basis for such a ban in law, and it could quite possibly be interpreted as actively hostile to religious freedom of expression, which hostility is illegal.

Following are guidelines and recommendations for the proper recognition of the religious aspects of the Christmas season within public schools:

Christmas in Public Schools

1. An increasing number of teachers throughout the country, including those in public schools, recognize that study aboutreligion in social studies, literature, art, and music is important to a well-rounded education.
2. Therefore it is entirely appropriate and good for public school teachers to educate their students about religious traditions, including those of Christianity, so long as the approach is academic and not devotional; that is, so long as, for example, Christmas is not taught as truly the Son of God’s birthday. It is permissible for teachers to state, however, that Christians celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus, whom they believe to be the Son of God.
3. While teachers may not promote religion, they may not denigrateit either. Teachers may never consciously lure students away from their own religious beliefs, denigrate those beliefs, or show hostility to those beliefs.
4. It is perfectly acceptable to use religious symbols, such as nativity scenes, as an aid or resource in teaching about religious holidays, but the religious symbols must be used onlyas examples of religious or cultural heritage.
5. It is appropriate to display Christian religious symbols of the Christmas season along with symbols of other faiths and secular symbols.

– Most courts view Santa Claus, reindeer, and candy canes as secular symbols

– Menorahs can be considered either a secular or religious symbol, depending upon the context in which they are placed. For example, a menorah placed next to a crèche and Kwanzaa symbols would likely be considered a religious symbol. A menorah placed next to a Santa and candy canes, however, would probably be considered a secular symbol.

– Christmas trees are a predominately secular symbol, but might be considered religious in certain contexts. For example, one court found that a Christmas tree placed next to a menorah and Kwanzaa symbols acted as a Christian symbol. Therefore, the court held, the school display did not discriminate against Christianity and the school could not be compelled to display a crèche.

6. The use of religious symbols in class and the display of religious symbols in schools should only be done on a temporarybasis, such as during a particular season or the study of a particular lesson.
7. School rules about the display of religious symbols should be uniform and even-handed. They cannot apply to one faith alone or discriminate against one faith alone. A school may notban the mention of Christmas by students, and may not refuse to display Christian religious symbols of Christmas when other faith and traditions are being recognized. Note, however, that a Christmas tree might sometimes count as a Christian religious symbol.
8. The use of religious music, art, or literature in school Christmas performances that present a variety of selections is appropriate. Concerts should avoid programs heavily dominated by religious music, particularly when such concerts coincide with holidays such as Christmas.

In many cases, bans against the mention of Christmas or the use of Christian Christmas symbols within public schools are explained as a means to respect “diversity.” Unfortunately, this term is too often used as a club wielded intolerantly. It is used not to respect diversity, but to restrict free speech and religious expression.

“Diversity” means recognizing the diverse cultures and faith traditions within America. It does not mean banning recognition of a part of that culture and faith tradition within public schools. Most of all, “diversity” does not mean hostility toward Christian religious expression and recognition. It means a balanced, fair, and even-handed treatment that does not exclude the religious significance and meaning of the Christmas celebration.

by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

(Catalyst 11/03)

Never has a film aroused such hostile passion so long prior to its release as has Mel Gibson’s “Passion.” Many American Jews are alarmed by reports of what they view as potentially anti-Semitic content in this movie about the death of Jesus, which is due to be released during 2004. Clearly the crucifixion of Jesus is a sensitive topic, but prominent Christians who previewed it—including good friends like James Dobson and Michael Novak, who have always demonstrated acute sensitivity to Jewish concerns—see it as a religiously inspiring movie and refute charges that it is anti-Semitic. While most Jews are wisely waiting to see the film before responding, others are either prematurely condemning a movie they have yet to see or violating the confidentiality agreements they signed with Icon Productions.

As an Orthodox rabbi with a wary eye on Jewish history which has an ominous habit of repeating itself, I fear that these protests, well intentioned though some may be, are a mistake. I believe those who publicly protest Mel Gibson’s film lack moral legitimacy. What is more, I believe their actions are not only wrong but even recklessly ill-advised and shockingly imprudent.

For an explanation of why I believe that those Jews protesting “Passion” lack moral legitimacy we must take ourselves back in time to the fall of 1999. That was when Arnold Lehman, the Jewish director of the Brooklyn Museum, presented a show called “Sensation.” It featured, from the collection of British Jew Charles Saatchi, several works which debased Catholicism, including Chris Ofili’s dung-bedecked “Madonna.”

You may wonder why I highlight the Jewish ethnicity of the players in the Brooklyn Museum saga. My reason for doing so is that everyone else recognized that they were Jewish, and there is merit in us knowing how we ourselves appear in the eyes of those among whom we live. This is especially true on those sad occasions when we violate what ancient Jewish wisdom commends as the practice of Kiddush HaShem, which is to say, conducting our public affairs in a way best calculated to bring credit upon us as a group. Maintaining warm relations with our non-Jewish friends is a traditional Jewish imperative and the raison d’etre of the organization I serve, Toward Tradition.

Almost every Christian organization angrily denounced the vile bigotry sponsored by the Brooklyn Museum. Especially prominent was William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a good friend who has always stood firmly with Jews in the fight against genuine anti-Semitism, yet now, in his fight against anti-Catholicism, he appealed to Jewish organizations in vain. Almost every Christian denomination helped vigorously protest the assault that the Brooklyn Museum carried out against the Catholic faith in such graphically abhorrent ways. Even Mayor Rudolph Giuliani expressed his outrage by trying to withhold money from the museum. Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness?

Only a small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity with elephant feces. And were other Jews silent? No, unfortunately not. In actuality a small but disproportionately vocal number of them were defending the Brooklyn Museum and its director in the name of artistic freedom.

You may also remember Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Then too almost every Christian denomination protested Universal’s release of a movie so slanderous that had it been made about Moses, or say, Martin Luther King Jr., it would have provoked howls of anger from the entire country. As it was, Christians were left to defend their faith quite alone other than for one solitary courageous Jew, Dennis Prager. Most Americans knew that Universal was run by Lew Wasserman. Most Americans also knew Lew’s ethnicity. Perhaps many now wonder why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?

When the Weinstein brothers, through their Miramax films (named after their parents, Mira and Max Weinstein), distributed “Priest” in 1994, Catholics were again left to protest this unflattering depiction of their faith alone while many Jewish organizations proclaimed the primacy of artistic freedom. Surely Jewish organizations would carry just a little more moral authority if they routinely protested all attacks on faith, not only those troubling to Judaism.

Oddly enough, Jewish organizations did find one movie so offensive as to warrant protest. It was Disney’s “Aladdin” that was considered, by Jews, to be needlessly offensive to Arabs!

Now I do have one possible explanation for why one might consider it more important to protest “Passion.” It is this: in Europe, anti-Semitic slander frequently resulted in Catholic mobs killing Jews. Our hyper-sensitivity has a long and painful background of real tragedy. In any event, Jewish moral prestige would stand taller if we were conspicuous in protesting movies that defame any religion. Furthermore, opponents of “Passion” argue that this movie might cause a backlash against the Jewish community. Yet when so-called art really does encourage violence, for Jewish spokesmen, artistic freedom seems to trump all other concerns. Here is what I mean.

During the nineties, record companies run by well known executives including Michael Fuchs, Gerald Levin, and David Geffen produced obscene records by artists like Geto Boys and Ice-T that advocated killing policemen and raping and murdering women. During that decade of shockingly hateful music that incited violence, our Jewish organizations only protested Michael Jackson’s song “They Don’t Care About Us” and the rap group Public Enemy’s single “Swindler’s Lust,” claiming that these songs were anti-Semitic. It is ignoble to ignore the wrongs done to others while loudly deploring those done to us.

In truth however, even though Catholics did kill Jews in Europe, I do not believe that the often sad history of Jews in Europe is relevant now. Why not? Because in Europe, Catholic church officials wielded a rapacious combination of ecclesiastical and political power with which they frequently incited illiterate mobs to acts of anti-Jewish violence. In America, no clergyman secures political power along with his ordination certificate, and in America, if there are illiterate and dangerous thugs, Christianity is a cure not the cause. In America, few Jews have ever been murdered, mugged, robbed, or raped by Christians returning home from church on Sunday morning. America is history’s most philo-Semitic country, providing the most hospitable home for Jews in the past 2,000 years. Suggesting equivalency between American Christians today and those of European history is to be offensive and ungrateful.

Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today’s American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn’t it okay to blame today’s Jews for things that our ancestors may have done? Clearly both are wrong, and doing so harms our relationships with one of the few groups still friendly toward us today. Jewish groups that fracture friendship between Christians and Jews are performing no valuable service to American Jews.

These protests against “Passion” are not only morally indefensible, but they are also stupid, for three reasons. The first reason is that that they are unlikely to change the outcome of the film. Mr. Gibson is an artist and a Catholic of deep faith of which this movie is an expression. Does anyone really believe that Gibson is likely to yield to threats from Jewish organizations?

The second and more important reason I consider these protests to be ill-advised: While Jews are telling Gibson that his movie contradicts historical records about who really killed Jesus, Vatican Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos has this to say: “Mel Gibson not only closely follows the narrative of the Gospels, giving the viewer a new appreciation for those Biblical passages, but his artistic choices also make the film faithful to the meaning of the Gospels, as understood by the Church.”
Do we really want to open up the Pandora’s Box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive?

Finally, I believe the attacks on Mel Gibson are a mistake because while they may be in the interests of Jewish organizations who raise money with the specter of anti-Semitism … they are most decidedly not in the interests of most American Jews who go about their daily lives in comfortable harmony with their Christian fellow citizens. You see, many Christians see all this as attacks not just on Mel Gibson alone or as mere critiques of a movie, but—with some justification, in my view—they see them as attacks against all Christians.

Right now, the most serious peril threatening Jews, and indeed perhaps all of Western civilization, is Islamic fundamentalism. In this titanic 21st century struggle that links Washington, D.C., with Jerusalem, our only steadfast allies have been Christians. In particular, those Christians who most ardently defend Israel and most reliably denounce anti-Semitism, happen to be those Christians most fervently committed to their faith. Jewish interests are best served by fostering friendship with Christians rather than cynically eroding them. Rejecting flagrant anti-Christianism on the part of Jews claiming to be acting on our behalf would be our wisest course as a community. Doing so would have one other advantage: it would also be doing the right thing.

Radio talk show host Rabbi Daniel Lapin is president of Toward Tradition, which is dedicated to bridging the divide between Christians and Jews by applying ancient solutions to modern problems in areas of family, faith, and fortune. The complete article is also posted on the organization’s website, www.towardtradition.org.

author of Breaking Free: Public School Lessons and the Imperative of School Choice by Louis J. Giovino

(Catalyst 9/2003)

Louis Giovino, director of communications, recently interviewed Sol Stern, author ofBreaking Free: Public School Lessons and the Imperative of School Choice(Encounter Books). Here is an excerpt from their exchange:

Louis Giovino: Can you talk about your background?

Sol Stern: I grew up in the Bronx. I’m actually an immigrant. I came to the U.S. from Israel as a three year old actually before Israel was a state. My parents were originally German refugees to Palestine and then we came here.
I was working for city government, and all of a sudden my two kids are getting ready to go to the public schools because we were public school supporters. But what I saw…led me to begin to take on this public school system in terms of trying to understand what it is that produced these outrageous things that I saw happening in my kid’s schools—everything from derelict teachers who couldn’t be fired, to the kinds of issues in terms of the subtle, political indoctrination—the left wing tilt in the schools. That’s how I got into this business.

Louis Giovino: How did you come to the conclusion that Catholic schools are better than public schools?

Sol Stern: First of all, I don’t make the general conclusion that Catholic schools are better than public schools. In fact, a lot research indicates that at the upper levels… there is no indication that Catholic schools are outperforming.
It’s in fact at the middle range or even lower than the middle range. It is difficult to educate kids in the inner city. Clearly there is tremendous evidence that Catholic schools are outperforming public schools. And certainly, if you do it on any kind of assessment that is, they’re doing a better job, an even better job considering that they spend far less per pupil than the public schools. I came to that conclusion partly as a result of doing research. But the reason I did some of the research and looked into the data was because it just occurred to me as I walked around my own neighborhood that there is a whole other school system there that almost no one in the mainstream media and even among the journals that I usually write for, was really writing about. As I became disillusioned with certain aspects of the public school system it just naturally occurred to me, well, lets take a look at this other system and see what I can learn and what conclusions we can draw about why the public schools aren’t doing as well.

Louis Giovino: What did you discover specifically about Catholic schools?

Sol Stern: What amazed me was what you could do with very little money if you had the dedication, the sense of mission, if you had the structure…if you had the right to create a real sense of order in the school and hold students accountable for their behavior, and instill some very basic ideas, which we have lost in public schools—what is good character for young people growing up, what’s acceptable and not acceptable.

Louis Giovino: What could you see in Catholic schools that could be adopted by public schools?

Sol Stern: [First] the absence of the kind of crippling work rules that now pervade the public school system. Second, the Catholic schools principals have a tremendous amount of autonomy. And the third most important—kids can’t learn if there’s no order, if there are no clear rules about what’s permissible and not permissible in a school environment

Louis Giovino: Turning to the issue of vouchers. Vouchers and tuition tax credits, of the two, which one would you support?

Sol Stern: I would say whichever gets the job done. I don’t have any ideological preference. I think tuition tax credits now in Florida are working real well, on the other hand, vouchers are working pretty well in Milwaukee. In my view it is a civil right, and if that can be done by giving the parent after the fact the amount of money that covers either all or part of the tuition in any private or parochial school through the tax system, that’s fine. If it’s done directly through a voucher, that’s fine. As long as kids are getting out and you are creating a dynamic of competition. We can get to that, but that’s the other issue of why I favor vouchers, it’s not just for the kids getting out of a terrible situation, but it’s also the effect on the public school system itself.
Louis Giovino: Now from your experience dealing with all this, have you seen anything specifically anti-Catholic from the unions?

Sol Stern: Of course. Absolutely. I say that in the book. Look, we know historically that the very development of the current public school system starting in the mid-nineteenth century was aimed against the hated Catholic Church and the new immigrants. Horace Mann, who is credited with developing the very idea of the common school, said it openly. So did the person who is credited for creating the New York City public school system at the turn of the century, Professor Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia. He represented a group of elite Protestant political leaders in New York that wanted to make sure that the public schools had one clear system for educating the immigrating kids in the values of a secular society.

Louis Giovino: We know historically there has been prejudice against Catholics. Do you have any examples today?

Sol Stern: I get comments like this all the time. Look, I live on the Upper West Side and for me coming out for vouchers was an act of betrayal for many, many so-called progressives. One of the reasons that they were very hostile about this issue was this idea that vouchers would undermine the public school system. They were very committed, devoted to the public school system. I have no problem with that. But clearly, in comments that were made to me, there was also this suspicion and hostility to the Catholic school sector, to the values that are taught in the Catholic schools, on all of the social issues. These are people, liberals, on issues such as abortion and gay rights and multiculturalism. They view the Catholic schools as a kind of bastion of regressive social policies. I think they are wrong. I understand that they have their positions, the liberal positions on these social issues. But they’re just wrong to want to deny the kids the right to a decent education because of their hostility to the Catholic Church on all these other questions.

Louis Giovino: Within the Christian community, especially the Evangelical Protestants, first they were against vouchers and now they are for them. Do have any comments on that?

Sol Stern: I think it’s a phenomenon of disenchantment with the public school system and they realize that the public schools have, in their view—and to some extent I agree with them—have gone off the deep end in terms of some of the values we have just talked about. You can hardly mention God in the public schools, but of course you could have a curriculum that is quite friendly to gay rights and gay liberation. So the Protestants, the evangelicals as you referred to them, are also sensing that need for exit, to be able to basically vote with their feet, their kid’s feet. To be able to say, “Look, this is not the kind of character training that I want for my child, and I want the right to have my child allowed into an educational institution which meets my needs as a parent for development of his or her character.” And so, there is some support there, you are right, for the idea of vouchers.

Louis Giovino: What do you think about the prospect of Jews getting on board with vouchers?
Sol Stern: You do now have the Orthodox Jewish community supporting vouchers or tax credits of some kind because, of course, they see an advantage for them and they run their own school systems. For the rest of the Jewish community, both religious and secular, for those who are affiliated even with conservative or reform, and those who are non-affiliated and not really religious Jews, there is, again, a traditional fear on the church and state issue. Jews define their assimilation and integration and acceptances as Americans in terms of the model of complete separation of church and state—of the whole idea of religion being a very private matter. And historically, that’s been their position and one of the reasons why none of the major Jewish organizations support vouchers.

Louis Giovino: You see the irony that the same people who want to sanitize religion from the public square are the same people who are against school choice. Can you comment on that? Is there anti-Catholicism behind that?

Sol Stern: Yes. Again, this is a complicated question. I think there are people who have legitimate questions about vouchers and they are worthy of debate. So, you have to distinguish. On the other hand there are people…that are just hostile to the idea of religion absolutely. They see this as a way of strengthening what they regard as a kind of pernicious influence of religious institutions over the minds of kids. And so it’s hostility, and in some cases bigotry against religion and particularly Catholic religion. They don’t want kids under the influence of the local parish. They much prefer them under the influence of the local ACLU or the local gay rights movement which clearly these institutions have a kind of entrée in the public schools and many of their values.