Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

A Jew by Any Other Name

A Jew by Any Other Name

The traditions of my Jewish upbringing left me with many wonderful memories but little knowledge of Scripture. So when, as a new Christian, I came upon the Old Testament account of Abraham lying to King Abimelech about his relationship to his wife, Sarah—saying in order to save his life that she was his sister (Gen. 20:1–7)—I was aghast. I remember blushing at the thought that such a disgraceful incident would have been published for the entire world to see. I wasn’t reading about just anyone: This was my family, truly my kinsman, and I felt ashamed.

I am no less ashamed by a present-day kinsman who, in the opinion of many orthodox Jews, has also brought disgrace on the “family.” I am referring to vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman and his unorthodox support for legal abortion. Although Mr. Lieberman is, unfortunately, not alone in his anti-life stance, his position grieves me more so because of a shared heritage and call to love God and keep his commandments.

Four thousand years ago, God spoke to Abram (soon to be Abraham) and promised that, through him, all the nations of the world would be blessed. Five hundred years later, God set aside a people for his name, formed through Abraham’s seed, and said to them, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him” (Deut. 30:19–20).

And now, some 3,500 years later, one of Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh has taken it upon himself to preach a counter-message. A recent article stated that Joe Lieberman no longer describes himself as an orthodox Jew, but rather as an “observant” Jew (need citation). Observant of what? Certainly not of God’s laws that forbid the taking of innocent life, including the life of the unborn (Ex. 21:22–25).

“Like everything in Judaism,” said Mr. Lieberman, “ultimately it’s up to each of us to decide.” That may be the case in some branches of Judaism, but it is not the Judaism of Israel’s God. “Why,” asked our Lord of the Pharisees and scribes, “do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). It is the recurring theme and rebuke of the Book of Judges that “every man did what was right in his own sight” (need citation).

“But, Ros,” someone (an orthodox, practicing Catholic) said to me, “for the first time in history a Jew is a candidate for the vice presidency! Do you realize what a breakthrough that is? I know he’s pro-choice, but what a great opportunity his election is for the Jewish people. And he does speak of God—he doesn’t hide his religion.”

What kind of opportunity, I ask? The opportunity to display before the entire world that, like too many Catholics, too many Jews have turned from God and are engaging in a holocaust with a death count several times worse than the one they themselves experienced just over a half century ago?

Many books and articles have been written accusing or praising Pope Pius XII for his actions with respect to the Jews during World War II. Did he stand by while they perished? The records have demonstrated otherwise—that Pope Pius XII did more to save the Jewish people than perhaps any other leader in history.

Yet many regular citizens did stand by while six million Jews and others perished. How could they have? Were they heartless? Blind? Spineless? I don’t think so. They were probably like us—incredulous that such a horror could in fact be happening before them. And perhaps, like many of us, they felt helpless to be able to make a difference, to fight such incomprehensible evil.

Such is the past.

What of now? And what of us? Will we also stand by in disbelief and helplessness while millions perish? Will we even go so far as to put men into office who have stated in advance that they will support the killing of infants at any stage for any reason?

Jesus said, “I came that they may have life” (John 10:10). To which the Jewish leaders of his day responded, “We do not want this man to reign over us!” (Luke 19:14). A pro-abortion politician, by his actions and words, effectively says, “I came that you may have death” (if you choose, of course). Will we respond, “We do want this man to reign over us”?

However he styles himself now, the press has trumpeted Mr. Lieberman as an orthodox Jew. But truly orthodox Jews—like truly orthodox Catholics—are unequivocally pro-life.

—Rosalind Moss 


 

Irish Blarney?

 

At the end of August, press accounts carried disturbing reports that “the Irish bishops,” in an apparent capitulation to political correctness, had asked that certain passages dealing with women be dropped from the Lectionary.

While there was plenty to be disturbed about in these reports, the headlines conveyed a misleading impression. This was no formal request submitted by the Irish Bishops’ Conference to the Holy See.

First, there doesn’t appear to have been any vote by the entire bishops’ conference. Only two groups—the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace and the bishops’ Pastoral Commission—were involved. The press then inflated this to reports that “the bishops” were asking for something. (Not surprising—the U.S. press does the same thing.)

Second, the relevant remarks weren’t directed to the Holy See. They were in a pastoral document about spousal abuse titled Domestic Violence. In discussing spousal abuse, the document singled out four passages from the Lectionary (Eph. 5:22–24, Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4–5, 1 Pet. 3:1–6) plus three others (1 Cor. 11:3–16, 14:33–35; 1 Tim. 2:11–15). It stated that these passages convey “an undesirably negative impression regarding women,” that when they “are quoted, in any context, they should be suitably commented on in the light of contemporary Church teaching,” and that they “would be better omitted from the new Lectionary, currently in preparation.”

What we have here is an opinion (1) expressed in passing, (2) in a document not addressed to the Holy See, (3) on a subject other than the editing of the new Lectionary, and (4) issued by just two commissions rather than a full bishops’ conference. After the inflated press headlines, one is tempted to remark, “Big deal.”

That’s not to say that there still isn’t a lot to be disturbed about. Let’s look at the three statements given above.

The most reasonable of the three statements mentioned above—that the passages in question should be “suitably commented upon in the light of contemporary Church teaching”—is true of any passage read at Mass or in any pastoral context.

A good example is 1 Peter 3:3–4, which says women should adorn themselves not with braided hair, gold jewelry, and fine clothes but with a gentle and quiet spirit. A suitable comment on this passage would be that Semitic hyperbole is being used, and the audience is expected to understand that the choices presented aren’t mutually exclusive. The point isn’t that women should leave their hair unkempt or give up jewelry and nice clothes; it is that they should be more concerned with virtue. These verses still have a valuable message, especially in the age of Cosmopolitan and Vogue.

Of course, when commenting “in the light of contemporary Church teaching,” one wants to be sure that the comments accurately reflect what that teaching is. Given the other remarks these Irish bishops made, one is not fully confident that they have a complete g.asp on that subject. The idea that the passages should be deleted from the Lectionary, for example, is disturbing. In an age of confusion over gender roles, when non-Christians have assaulted Christian values, one would think that the sources of Christian doctrine pertaining to this subject should be preached more rather than less.

There are other problematic elements of the Irish document. For example, its foreword states, “The church has not been without its share of responsibility [for domestic violence] in the past, and we acknowledge this.” Strictly speaking, this isn’t true. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ and is in no way responsible for domestic violence. The most that can be said is that individualswithin the Church have not done what they should have regarding the problem. The fact that such a statement would be made suggests a theological tin ear.

One of the most inexplicable things about the document is its statement that the Bible passages present “an undesirably negative impression regarding women.” If one reads the passages and their contexts, it is difficult to see them as belittling women. In Ephesians 5, Paul is glowing in his description of how wives correspond to the glorious Bride of Christ and how husbands must love their wives to the point of self-sacrifice. Since he gives no reciprocal responsibility to wives, if anything one gets the sense that Paul puts women on a pedestal.

And this isn’t just Paul talking: This is the inspired word of God. What is the implication here regarding domestic violence? Is it being suggested that these verses somehow cause spousal abuse? True enough that sinners can find things in God’s word to uses as pretexts both for this sin and others. But it is disturbing to suggest that the passages should be dropped from the Church’s liturgical life as if they are things to be ashamed of, and any suggestion that God’s word causes sin simply cannot be countenanced.

—James Akin 


 

The Devil You Say 

 

I was a teen-age boy when the movie The Exorcist was first released in 1973. Since my parents wouldn’t allow me to see it, I sneaked out to the theater with my best friend. The movie scared me silly. (My father had told me the devil uses our fascination with him to gain entry into our beings.) I spent almost the entire time looking down at the back of the seat in front of me, promising God that if he let me leave the theater unpossessed I would never transgress again. God kept his end of the bargain; I didn’t.

Since the movie was re-released in September and did blockbuster business, it is apparent that the public fascination with Satan and his minions has not lessened over the years. Though many non-Christians scoff at the reality of demons, the best thing you can do for the devil (paraphrasing Screwtape) is to disbelieve his existence.

Two weeks before the movie reopened, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the official exorcist of the diocese of Rome, confirmed to the Italian newspaper Il Messagero that Pope John Paul II had performed an exorcism on a 19-year-old woman attending his September 6 public audience. Reportedly, the young woman came seeking the Pope’s blessing, but, when he arrived, she began shouting hysterically. As police tried to calm her she showed extraordinary strength in resisting them.

The Holy Father met with the young woman and prayed privately with her for about 30 minutes. She apparently experienced some relief after that session, but it was only temporary. Fr. Amorth said he also performed an exorcism on her the day before the papal audience. He repeated the ceremony after the girl’s meeting with the Pope. During his second exorcism, the priest said the demon ridiculed the Pope, saying, “Not even your boss can do anything about me!”

Then, on September 19, The Chicago Sun-Times reported that for the first time in its 160-year history, Cardinal Francis George of the archdiocese of Chicago had quietly appoint appointed a full-time exorcist almost a year ago. The archdiocesan priest, whose identity has been withheld to protect his privacy, told the newspaper he is reluctant to appear publicly because “confidentiality is of utmost importance in my work.” Though he has not performed any public exorcisms in Chicago, he was meeting with a dozen people who have sought his help.

Fr. James LeBar, an exorcist for the archdiocese of New York, who was appointed by the late Cardinal John O’Connor, said he has seen New York’s number of exorcisms go from none in 1990 to 300 in the last decade.

“As people lose their respect and reverence for life, spirituality, and human beings, the devil can move in,” LeBar said. There is no fixed duration of time for the healing nor is there any guarantee of success. LeBar pointed out that the effort by Pope John Paul II was not a “failure” because treatments can last decades.

—Tim Ryland

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us