|
|
Is the SSPX Anti-Semitic?
by Robert A. Sungenis,
Ph.D.
Today, allegations of anti-semitism are commonplace.
Unfortunately, those who most often make the allegations fail to define what
they mean by the term. Perhaps they do so unintentionally, believing that the
public already has a common understanding. But it could also be a deliberate
attempt at demagoguery; a scheme to win the war of words and labels before
any shots are fired. I don’t know into which of these two categories Jewish
convert Roy Schoeman fits because I don’t know his heart. Nevertheless, his
bold and unqualified accusation of anti-semitism against the Society of St.
Pius X brings the question of his own views and motives to the fore.
On his website, Mr. Schoeman
has weighed in on L’affaire Williamson.
But whereas neither the Vatican
nor Bishop Fellay has accused Williamson of anti-Semitism for questioning the
extent of Jewish deaths in WWII, Schoeman not only alleges that Williamson is
guilty of this crime, he accuses the entire SSPX of being, as he puts it,
“virulently anti-Semitic.” Schoeman confirmed his sentiment in a recent EWTN
interview where he adds that the SSPX is “violently anti-Semitic” and that
its teaching on the Jews “pretends to be Catholic theology, but is really
very distasteful.”
On the website, Schoeman cites three articles
written by SSPX authors in an attempt to prove his point: 1) The Mystery of the Jewish People in
History, 2) The Jews Guilty of
Deicide, and 3) What Really is
Anti-semitism? He introduces these articles with this accusation:
the head of the Society of St.
Pius X (or “SSPX)…emphasizing that the Society can only speak authoritatively
on matters of ‘faith and morals.’ However, most distressingly, it is
precisely in those matters of ‘faith and morals’ in which the Society
professes to be authoritative that the Society presents some of its most
virulently anti-Semitic teachings. The following articles from its website
purport to represent authentic Catholic teaching on the Jewish people.
I’ve read the three articles. I can honestly say
that I don’t find anything “anti-Semitic.” In fact, there is only one matter
that I believe the SSPX treated incorrectly. It is in the article The Jews Guilty of Deicide.
So, the logical question is: Why does Roy Schoeman see anti-semitism in
places where others do not? Obviously, it is because different definitions
are being employed. But in Mr. Schoeman’s case I’m being rather gratuitous
since he has never provided his readers with a working definition, for
neither his website nor his two books contain one. Conversely, the SSPX has
been very forthright. In the article, “What really is Anti-Semitism?” Rev. Denis Fahey is careful to cite
various Catholic magisterial teachings that show the true meaning of
anti-Semitism. As we have always known, the definition of anti-Semitism is
not criticism of Jewish beliefs and actions, but hatred of the Jewish race
regardless of what they believe or do. Here is an excerpt:
In the excellent review of my
book The Kingship of Christ and
Organized Naturalism which appeared in the Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolicá (Rome, March
1947), the reviewer laid special stress on the distinction which I have been
making in all books. He wrote as follows:
“The author wants a clear distinction to be made between hatred of the
Jewish nation, which is Anti-Semitism, and opposition to the Jewish and
Masonic naturalism. This opposition on the part of Catholics must be
mainly positive by acknowledging, not only individually, but socially, the
rights of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and His Church.…
Space does not allow of lengthy
quotations from papal documents to show that, on the one hand, the sovereign
pontiffs insist that Catholics must stand unflinchingly for the integral
rights of Christ the King as contained in the papal encyclicals, while, on
the other hand, keeping their minds and
hearts free from hatred of Our Lord’s own nation according to the flesh.
On the other hand, they must battle for the rights of Christ the King and the
supernatural organization of society as laid down in the encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally proclaiming
that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own
nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a
fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world. On the other hand,
as members of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholics
should neither hate the members of that nation in which, through our Blessed
Mother, the Lily of Israel, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed
human nature, nor deny them their legitimate rights as persons….
Two reasons can be assigned for
the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who
should be on the side of Christ the King. Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism
without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the
documents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the
Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incumbent on all Catholics of
standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the
Jewish naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of
Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against
those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively
aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.
Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the
naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between
Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and
“Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism”
is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of
their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jewish nation hold that to stand for the Rights of
Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with
all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the
Jewish nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt
to achieve these aims.
So what does Mr. Schoeman find so objectionable in
these words? We don’t find anything close, for example, to what Martin Luther
once wrote: “Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated
earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the
wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish (Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, “The
Christian in Society IV”). In direct contrast to Luther, in The Mystery of the Jewish People in
History, the SSPX concludes: “Under pain of sin, Catholics cannot hate
the Jewish people, cannot persecute them or prevent them to live, nor disturb
them in their private practice of their laws and customs.” In the same
article the SSPX says it stands by the Decree of the Holy Office of March 25,
1928, which “condemns hatred against the people formerly chosen by God, that
hatred that ordinarily goes by the name of Antisemitism.” Prior to that, the article
cites and endorses the Apostolic Constitution, Licet Perfidia Judaeorum, of Pope Innocent III in 1199 AD, which
solemnly stated:
They [the Jews] are the living witnesses of the true
Faith. The Christian must not exterminate or oppress them…We must not molest
them in the exercise of the privileges accorded them…As they seek our help,
we accept and take them under our protection; and following our predecessors
Callixtus, Eugenius, Alexander, Clement and Celestine, we forbid the forcing
of baptism on a Jew, also harming them in any way or taking their goods,
etc., or violating their cemeteries and digging up corpses to find money. The
punishment for disobedience to these dispositions is excommunication.
Schoeman obviously read the three SSPX articles,
but even though they all decry anti-Semitism, he apparently doesn’t accept
the claims, preferring to believe that either the SSPX is trying to deceive
the public or that it doesn’t understand its own psyche. All in all, Schoeman
holds that both the historical Catholic Church and the SSPX have too narrow a
view of anti-Semitism. As such, Schoeman’s trigger goes off when the SSPX
articles begin to touch upon the negative side of Jewish history. He cringes
when the SSPX points out the Catholic Church’s consistent warnings against
Jewish power and influence, since these warnings invariably cast a dark
shadow upon the Jews at large. He equally recoils when Fr. Fahey sums up the
Church’s warnings by concluding that the Jews have designs to dominate the
world. In one place Fahey says: “the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the
True Messias, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation
to Him, are a fundamental source of
disorder and conflict in the world,” and in another, “For the
Jews, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic
Messianic domination of their nation
over all the others.” Schoeman balks at the suggestion that the Jews are
to blame for the world’s troubles. Simply put, if the world believes the Jews
are the cause of the trouble, the world will react by turning against the
Jews (as they have done in the past); and since the Jews are outnumbered by
500 to 1, it doesn’t bode well for them. This is a legitimate fear, and
Schoeman more or less admitted it in his EWTN interview. In answer to a query
of why Bishop Williamson questions the holocaust, Schoeman responds: “I think
it’s part of an overall kind of a volatile Jewish conspiracy world view….If
the holocaust were a hoax…that would mean that this Jewish conspiracy ran the
world, and ran the world’s government and ran the world’s press, and was able
to pull off this huge hoax that eluded the rest of the world.”
Obviously, descriptions that portray the Jew as a
power-hungry, money-grubbing, goy-controlling,
Christ-rejecting misanthropist are certainly “distasteful.” This is the image
that Schoeman probably sees in the SSPX article, The Mystery of the Jewish People in History, for the authors
emphasize that, “The Sacred Scriptures record that the Israelite people had
always a nature dominated by great pride and avarice.” Of Jesus’ tirade in
Matthew 23, the same authors add: “No one in all the course of history has
pronounced more terrible anathemas than those of the Son of God against the
perfidious carnality of His own people.” Elsewhere they say: “The Jewish
people, once a mystery of goodness, is now changed into a mystery of
iniquity. It is no longer Isaac, but Ishmael. No longer Jacob, but Esau.” Or:
“Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to
Christian nations.” Or: “All that is not of Christ and for Christ is done in
favor of Judaism. It follows from that, that the de-Christianizing of the
world runs parallel to its Judaizing.” Or: “In the domain of the material, it
is the Jewish people who have the superiority. History tells us [Werner
Sombart, Les juifs et la vie économique,
Paris, 1923] that the renowned greatness of English and American Capitalism
is only a Judaic creation.” Or:
The Jews not only monopolized
money-changing; the real source of their wealth was usury…they gradually
became the bankers and financiers for all classes…Jansen cites that in 1338,
Emperor Louis Bavaria allowed the Jews to charge interest rates as high as
32.5%...Germany: 43% for foreigners in the city. At Ratisbon…as high as 86%.
The
authors conclude with these points:
…this people refuses to
assimilate itself into the country that gives it hospitality, and lives by
Talmudic laws contrary to the common good. The policy of the Catholic Church
is to extend liberty to the Jewish people to develop and live within its
legitimate laws while guarding Catholics, however, against its domination….If
Christians wish to remain free, let them avoid entanglements with the Jewish
people. It dominates in every branch of commerce and finance, in philosophy
and the universities….Christendom under holy kings and pope knew how to guard
against these dangers….To penetrate Christendom, the masses must be captivated
and rebellion fomented against its two pillars – Pope and King.
And
again:
The gifted Jewish bankers have
created a controlled economy whose ultimate end is the multiplication of
money….International Judaism has created international capitalism to gain
international wealth….Jews get into posts of influence and submit society to
a high degree of corruption in ways of thinking and acting, which leads to a
reaction of public opinion against them.
The foregoing descriptions are hardly flattering,
but what are we to do? Aside from any exaggerated caricatures of the Jew that
should immediately be dismissed from our minds, are we to pretend that the
Jews, whether on a local or global scale, have never said or done anything
against Christ or Christianity for the last 2000 years? Are we to pretend
that Jews have never tried to dominate the world and defeat Christianity by
accumulating money and political power to promote their anti-Christian and
humanistic worldview? This is the
essence of the three SSPX articles. But instead of acknowledging these facts,
Schoeman ignores them and puts the blame on the SSPX for bringing them to our
attention. The truth is, even the Jews themselves recognize that they strive
for and have attained these positions of global power and influence, for the
SSPX article also quotes the Jewish newspaper, Jewish World, boasting the following:
The great ideal of Judaism is
that the whole world should be imbued with Jewish teaching, and that in a
universal fraternity of nations – an enlarged Judaism – all separate races
and religious should disappear….By their activity in literature and science,
by expressing their dominant passion in every branch of public activity, they
are gradually pouring into Jewish molds all non-Jewish systems of ideas”
(February 9, 1863).
How much clearer could it be? If Mr. Schoeman
wants us to believe that there is nothing to fear from these self-professed
Jewish aspirations to global domination, he must work a little harder than
merely labeling the messengers as “anti-Semitic.” Schoeman must deal with the
evidence the SSPX brings to the table, but from my experience with Schoeman
(who has never answered even one of the numerous e-mails I’ve sent to him or
taken up any of the public challenges I have given him), he simply will not
discuss these issues or the issues E. Michael Jones raises in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
Apparently, it’s more effective to deal with critics by labeling them with
derogatory names and never answering their challenges. His stance is especially
disheartening when we see that Jewish antagonism against Christ and
Christianity, except for very brief interludes, has not appreciably changed
since the first century. How could it when we see the head of the
Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, flying to Rome to put pressure on the
pope to change Catholic prayers that call for the conversion of the Jews,
since he, as the self-appointed spokesman for Judaism, deems such prayers
“anti-Semitic”? Does Roy Schoeman ever condemn such acts on his website or in
his books? No, in all he has written over the years there is not one word of
criticism against anyone Jewish. We do, however, find such things as “The
Arab/Nazi Connection” or “The Homosexuality/Nazi Connection” displayed on the
homepage of Schoeman’s website, but nothing, for example, about the Israeli
army’s continual holocaust against the Palestinians since 1948, and nothing
about how Hollywood (which, by the Jews’ own admission, is run by them)
promotes homosexuality in television and movies, along with giving us a
steady diet of abortion, divorce, adultery, drugs, and every other form of
debauchery. If the SSPX were to put a link on their website titled, “The
Homosexuality/Jewish Connection” or “The Jewish/Abortion Connection” you can
depend upon it that Mark Shea or Sandra Miesel would be writing a scathing
article accusing the SSPX of seeing “Reds under the bed” or some other wild
conspiracy theory designed to discredit them.
The fact remains, the SSPX has hit a nerve, and
Roy Schoeman is trying to deal with it by telling us that we can’t believe
what our own eyes are showing us. Not only does Schoeman dismiss the SSPX as
anti-Semitic, he also encourages us to dismiss the consistent and numerous
edicts from our popes and councils throughout history warning against Jewish
designs to undermine the Catholic Church. The SSPX authors inform us that
“There are at least 15 papal documents warning the Catholic Church against
the dangers presented by the Jewish people.” Just as St. Paul did in the first
century when he concluded in 1 Thess 2:14-16: “the Jews, who killed both the
Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and
are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles
that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins.
But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them,” so, in almost in
every century thereafter our popes have had to issue dire warnings to the
Catholic faithful concerning the Jews. In fact, what we find in Scripture is
much harsher than what either the popes or SSPX has said. The inspired
authors tell us that the Jews murdered the prophets (Mt 23:35-38); they
sinned horrendously (Acts 7:51); they refused their own Messiah (Acts 13:46;
John 10:33); they instigated His murder (Jn 19:6-7; Ac 3:17); they are
compared with the devil (Jn 8:44); they are called liars and hypocrites (Mt
23:13-32); they incite riots (Acts 13-14); they constantly harass Christians
(Gal. 2-3; Col. 2); they are “the synagogue of Satan” (Ap 2:9; 3:9). The
Bible is filled with these types of negative descriptions because the Jews
made a constant and direct assault on Christianity. In fact, about 75 percent
of the New Testament concerns Jewish antagonism against Christ and the Church.
Because of that high percentage, one might wonder why the inspired authors
paid so much attention to the Jews. One reason is that they are not merely
recording historical facts for us, but in the same way that the Old Testament
forecasts the future for the New (cf.
1Cor 10:6, 11; Rom 15:14), so the New Testament forecasts what we can expect
for the remainder of the Church age—an intense spiritual war between the Jews
and Christianity—the precise war that is being fought today.
Accordingly, Scripture’s characterization of the
Jews has not gone unnoticed by many Jewish rabbis and theologians. How many
times have we heard Abe Foxman, Rabbi Rosen and many other Jewish rabbis
complain that the New Testament is anti-Semitic? Rabbi Michael Signer, a
professor emeritus at Notre Dame University, made quite a name for himself
teaching that the Gospel of John is anti-semitic, consequently destroying the
faith of many of the Catholic college students who took his courses (see Culture Wars, May 2006). What
definition of anti-semitism do you think they are all using? We don’t know
for sure because, like Roy Schoeman, they never tell us, but we can surmise
that the definition secretly holds that anything said or written which puts
the Jews in a bad light is anti-Semitic, regardless whether the allegations
are true or not.
So we seem to have a dilemma here. If we are not
careful about our definition of anti-Semitism, we will end up calling the Catholic Church and the very word of
God anti-Semitic. This is precisely the conclusion which Abe Foxman wishes to
plant in your mind. Either that or, thanks to the undermining of Scripture
fostered by liberal Catholic scholars who appeal to “historical criticism,”
other Jews claim that the New Testament’s anti-Semitism did not originate
with the four Evangelists and St. Paul but from second- or third-generation
Christians who deliberately added anti-Semitic remarks to the Bible! Take
your pick. Either way, the Church and the New Testament are made guilty of
anti-Semitism.
In the end, if this war of words and labels is
ever to subside and give place to genuine care and concern for each other’s
welfare, it is imperative that all interested parties establish the proper
definitions before any intellectual discourse takes place, the barriers of
which no one should be allowed to cross. We need to come to a happy medium
that, on the one hand, will not make Catholics fearful of pointing out
worldwide Jewish opposition to Christianity, and, on the other hand, satisfy
the Roy Schoemans of the world that neither Catholic doctrine nor Catholic
people want to promote “anti-Semitism.” Of course, this is a very difficult
task. How can we defend Christianity against Jews who so vociferously reject
it without being cast, in some sense, as anti-Jewish? Is it possible to
distinguish between Jewish ideological opposition to Christianity and Jewish
political, financial and social power that is used to foster that opposition?
I think this is the quintessential nature of “the Jewish problem” for the
Catholic Church, and that it will never go away. Some have chosen to deal
with it by appeasement; others by reproach; others by indifference. We can
only hope that all sides will not go to the extreme in their respective
approaches, but that each finds and maintains a happy medium of coexistence,
as St. Augustine would have us, between the City of God and the City of Man.
LET’S PUT THE SHOE ON THE
OTHER FOOT
In order to reach a happy medium of coexistence,
however, I think we need to level the playing field a bit. As such, it would
be highly beneficial for Mr. Schoeman to put the shoe on the other foot so
that he can feel what it is like to be accused of something of which he would
surely object. Since Mr. Schoeman has been rather loose with his definition
of anti-Semitism and thereby demonized the SSPX while insulating Jews against
their critics, let’s turn the tables on Mr. Schoeman and make an allegation
against him without defining the label we use. In Mr. Schoeman’s case, such
an allegation is not too difficult to propose. Since Mr. Schoeman accuses the
SSPX of being “anti-Semitic,” we could just as easily accuse Mr. Schoeman of
being “anti-Catholic.” This is not because Mr. Schoeman does not desire to be
a good Catholic (just as the SSPX does not wish to foster hatred of the
Jewish people), but simply because, based on his books, articles, and
speeches, Roy Schoeman has taught some of the most egregious errors about the
Catholic faith that have ever been held by a Jewish convert.
Moreover, Schoeman has not even acknowledged these
errors when they were brought to his attention, much less sought to rectify
them. I know the charges I make here are serious, but I don’t make them
lightly. In fact, I have about as good a witness to these charges as I can find.
That witness is a well-qualified Catholic scholar who recently served as a
consultant to the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC), at least until he
resigned over what he concluded, in his own words, was “heresy” being taught
by that organization. I speak of none other than Dr. Raymond A. Kevane, the
brother of the late Monsignor Eugene Kevane, the latter of which was the
founder of AHC.
KEVANE
Ray Kevane is no ordinary man. He has a Licentiate
in Sacred Theology from the Gregorian University and a Doctorate in Canon Law
from the Lateran University, both in Rome. To put it bluntly, Dr. Kevane has
rubbed shoulders with the best and the brightest. He knows his Catholic
theology, and he also knows when it is being misrepresented. Recently Ray
wrote me a letter stating his grave concerns about the teachings of David
Moss and Roy Schoeman. He also gave me a copy of an open letter he wrote to
Mr. Moss in 2005 and another letter in 2006, both of which Moss has not
answered, except for one short stop-gap letter stating that he would
eventually respond. In his letters, Dr. Kevane was very kind to Moss, but he
minced no words, even though he was pre-warned by another Jewish convert,
Ronda Chervin, that he “should be very careful…not to offend egos.” At one
place he wrote:
The purpose…of this letter is to
explain further the depth of my concern about him [David Moss] and the Hebrew
converts who follow him and Mr. Schoeman. As a theologian and a Canon Lawyer,
I feel obliged to say very clearly: He and they are promoting Heresy – and
I’m not talking about ‘judaizing,’ a word that I believe causes major
irritation to Mr. Schoeman, if not to David Moss….With this letter, I submit
my resignation as a consultant to the Association of Hebrew Catholics because
I am convinced that the organization and its president have entered into a
path which will lead to heresy. Of course, you can recant. If you do so, then
I will reconsider…
Later I will quote more from Ray’s letter, but for
now I want to point out the things about Roy Schoeman’s teachings that have
upset Kevane. First, as for my own qualifications to make this critique of
Schoeman, Dr. Kevane said of me in his letter: “I’ve been impressed with the
validity of your Theology since I first read one of your writings, and there
are very few ‘theologians’ I feel that way about.” With that endorsement,
allow me to proceed.
In 2007, I wrote an article titled:
“Problems in the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman.” I was vilified by
Schoeman’s supporters with the usual epithets of “anti-Semitism” and many
other derogatory names, but few, if any, could mount any sustainable
objections to my points. (Some of these same points are reiterated by Dr.
Kevane in his letters to David Moss). Among them are the following:
1. Schoeman
claims that the Jews are “blessed by nature” (Salvation is from the Jews, p. 42). This is racial favoritism, and
it is condemned in the New Testament (cf.
Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; Gal 3:28; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:9-10;
2Co 3:6-14), and also condemned in Catholic magisterial teaching. Schoeman’s
promotion of the Jewish race is even more disturbing when he adds that faith
itself is not a criterion for divine blessing, for on the same page he says:
“…a blessing by nature promised to…the Jewish race, despite their lack of
faith in Christ.” Everything in Scripture and Church teaching says just the
opposite (cf. Rm 4:1-24; 9:24-32;
10:16-21; Ac 7:1-53; 13:45-48). Dr. Kevane adds that in one of his
conversations with David Moss, Moss was quoting Roy Schoeman as saying “‘Jews
are an elect people. It is diminished when they become Christian, and that is
the reason why Jews don’t convert.’ If you are quoting him accurately, this
is an astonishing statement….Mr. Schoeman must believe as a Catholic that when
a Jew or anyone converts to Catholicism, he or she becomes part of the People
of Election in the New Covenant.”
2. Schoeman
claims that Ishmael was the “illegitimate son” of Abraham (which is false),
and concludes from this that present-day Arabs, because they come from
Ishmael’s bastard seed, are “doing a good job” of fulfilling the description
of people who “have their hand against every man,” and this is “borne out of
the fact that in most of the violent conflicts throughout the world…one side
is fighting in the name of Islam…as the sons of Ishmael” (Salvation is from the Jews, pp.
301-302). This is another statement of Jewish racism, since Mr. Schoeman
caricatures a whole people as evil, and regards them as the world’s
troublemakers based on nothing more than their ancestral origins. Is this not
the very thing to which Schoeman objected in his EWTN interview when he said
that critics of Jews have “an overall kind of a volatile Jewish conspiracy
world view….that this Jewish conspiracy ran the world, and ran the world’s
government and ran the world’s press”?
3. Schoeman
claims that Jewish converts have been endowed with a special “Jewish charism”
from God such that they are analogous to “yeast” that makes bread rise (Salvation is from the Jews, p. 71). This
is akin to saying that the Jews are favored above Gentile converts and that
the Church cannot be very successful without the Jews. But there is no
teaching in the New Testament or the magisterium that says Jews have a
special charism from God just because they are Jews. As Dr. Kevane stated in
his letters: “Contrary to what Dave Moss seems to believe, Judaism is not the
root onto which the Catholic Church is grafted, but Jesus Christ is the root,
and Israel is a branch which was broken off (Rom 11:17, 19)….” You created new
doctrine, for example, putting an interpretation on Catholic Baptism…e.g. through baptism, Gentiles are
‘grafted on to the root which is Israel’ …. Nostra Aetate says nothing of the kind.”
4. Schoeman
claims that Jewish converts should be allowed to resurrect Jewish festivals,
such as the seder meal, and other unspecified Jewish identity markers. (NB:
At one time, David Moss considered bringing back the practice of
circumcision). This has been expressly forbidden by the Church. According to
the Council of Florence, anyone who does so imperils his own salvation (e.g., Council of Florence, Denz.
¶712); and Thomas Aquinas says that those who do so commit mortal sin (Summa Theologica, I, II, Q. 103, Art.
4). Dr. Kevane told the same thing to David Moss: “In almost every century
there has been an effort to bring the rites of the Jewish religion into the
Catholic Church. Every time it has arisen, it has caused great harm to the
Catholic Church before finally being discredited….I have been warned that in
arguing against intermingling Jewish rites with Catholic liturgies (I believe
some call it ‘judaizing’), I will be accused of being anti-Semitic and
racist.”
5. Schoeman
claims that we can look “to the Talmud to examine some of what it has to say
about the Messiah” (Salvation is from the
Jews, p. 111). But the sad fact is, the “Messiah” of the Talmud is not
Jesus Christ, for the Talmud did not believe Jesus was either God or the
Messiah. In fact, the Talmud claims Jesus was a false prophet, the bastard
child of Mary (who it calls a “whore”), and that Jesus is in hell presently
being boiled in human excrement. Let’s make this perfectly clear: The Talmud
is looking for another messiah, one who is not Jesus Christ. But instead of pointing out these
anti-Christian tenets of the Talmud, Schoeman exonerates the Talmud and
spends his time highlighting the immoralities and anti-Christian beliefs in
the Koran (Salvation is from the Jews,
pp. 299ff).
6. Schoeman
says the Fathers of the Church and Catholic tradition perpetuated an error
“for two thousand years” by interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament
concerning the “restoration of Israel” as referring to the Catholic Church
and not a future nation-state of Israel (Salvation
is from the Jews, pp. 303-312, 352-353). But as Dr. Kevane notes in his
open letter: “No Catholic can say that the Church has held an erroneous
theology for 2000 years and still remain a Catholic.” Vatican II itself
affirms that the Church is the “new Israel” (Ad Gentes 1, 5; Lumen
Gentium 2, 9). Schoeman’s view is closer to the Protestant
Dispensationalists who, like Schoeman, continue to view the Jews as a special
race of people above other races, and who will subsequently be blessed far
above other races, simply because they are Jews.
7. Not
only does Schoeman claim that Old Testament prophecy predicts a “new Jewish
state,” he says it “shall be extremely prosperous” and that the modern-day
Israeli army is a God-favored entity such that God will see to it that
“Israel will be miraculously militarily strong and able to defend itself” (Salvation is from the Jews, pp.
309-310). Neither the New Testament nor the Catholic Church teaches this type
of divinely-blessed military prowess. It appears to be nothing more than
political Zionism dressed in religious garb, and it has an uncanny
resemblance to the Jews of the first century who wanted the Messiah to be a
military leader to destroy the Romans. God is not behind the Israeli army any
more than he is behind any other army. This was the same mistake that
Menachem Begin, David Ben Gurion and Ariel Sharon made in 1948 when, under
the guise that they were the new “Joshuas and Calebs” who were under divine
mandate to “slaughter the Amelekites” (these exact words are in their
speeches), they began slaughtering the Palestinians, since Israel was said to
be divinely destined to retake the land of Canaan.
8. Schoeman
claims that the “fullness of the Gentiles” (Rm 11:25) occurred in 1967, and
the sign of its fulfillment was what he deems as the God-blessed six-day surge
of the Israeli army against its Arab neighbors in which “Jerusalem…was
recaptured by the modern state of Israel in the 1967 war” (p. 306). This is
also Jewish racism, as well as a totally distorted and unprecedented
interpretation of Sacred Scripture.
9. Schoeman
claims that from 1967 onwards there have been tremendous numbers of Jewish
conversions due to the fact that the “time of the Gentiles” is now complete
and God is now dealing directly with the Jews (Salvation is from the Jews, pp. 350-351), despite the fact that,
out of 6 million Jews in Israel today, only about 6,000 of them are
Christians, which numbers are less, proportionately, than the remnant of
7,000 in the time of Elijah when Israel’s population was about the same as it
is today (see Rom 11:5-8). In fact, the amount of Jewish Christians in Israel
is about 30 times less than Palestinian Christians. All in all, the figures
of Jewish conversions that Schoeman gives in his book are highly exaggerated.
(Details are available upon request). Interestingly enough, Dr. Kevane notes
that Moss and Schoeman also teach that the “Jews are not converting because
the Father is not now drawing them to Christ – with individual exceptions –
as Jesus Himself said (John 6:44: No man can come unless the Father who sent
me draws him). Does Mr. Schoeman have a problem with that statement as did
some of the Jews who heard Christ say it and who walked no more with him?”
10. Schoeman
claims that those who try to “destroy the nascent State of Israel, well might
be part of a diabolical attempt to prevent the Second Coming” (p. 316), thus
promoting the idea that the existence and thriving of the nation state of
Israel is absolutely necessary for Christ to return. This is a total
distortion of Catholic teaching and a total misunderstanding of Scripture.
Neither source states that the existence of an Israeli nation state is
necessary for Christ to return. This is just another indication that Schoeman
sees the Jewish race as the fulcrum upon which the rest of the world turns.
As Dr. Kevane notes in his open letter:
“To his credit, David Moss is quoted on the back of Schoeman’s book as
follows: ‘Schoeman weaves together fascinating speculations on the ongoing
role of the Jews in the light of…the Second Coming.’ ‘Speculations,’ of course,
is the correct word, because many of his statements are not grounded in
Scripture (except a twisted interpretation of it), and they ignore or falsify
the doctrines of the Catholic Church as presented by the Popes and Ecumenical
Councils….Jesus Christ is the central figure in the salvific plan and acts of
God, not the Jews – not even at the Second Coming – which, regardless of what
the Jews do, will come at whatever time God has ordained. The idea that the
Second Coming cannot occur unless the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah is an
idea which has been pulled out of thin air without any support from
Scripture, from Papal pronouncements, or from the Magisterium.”
11. Schoeman
claims that the “one day” mentioned in Isaiah 66:8 is prophesying the
establishment of the nation state of Israel on precisely one day, namely, May
14, 1948 (Salvation is from the Jews,
p. 307). This view not only circumvents the patristic consensus which regards
prophecies of “restoring Israel” as referring symbolically to the Catholic
Church (e.g., Acts 15:16-18, Ad Gentes 1, 5; Lumen Gentium 2, 9), but also ignores the fact that modern Jewish
leaders and the United Nations formed the nation of Israel with absolutely no
allegiance to Jesus Christ who is the centerpiece of Isaiah 66’s prophecy!
This is further evidence of Schoeman’s erroneous belief that the Jews are
“blessed by nature,” a blessing, as we noted above, that he says “would
remain with the Jewish race, despite their lack of faith” (p. 42).
12. Schoeman
claims in his public lectures and newsletter that the Blessed Virgin Mary
“talked” to him and “answered his questions.” This alleged supernatural
occurrence should have been immediately brought to his bishop to investigate
its authenticity before it was ever broadcast by Schoeman as a true event
worthy of praise and a cult following. As far as I know, no such
investigation has been made, yet Schoeman consistently uses the alleged
apparition to bolster his novel theological and apocalyptic interpretations
of Scripture that we see above. As Dr. Kevane notes: “In view of Schoeman’s
many ‘speculations’ which are presented as ‘fact,’ and his creation of
certain ‘Catholic dogmas,’ these visitations by the Blessed Virgin must be
viewed with a good deal of skepticism. In view of what happened at
Medjugorje, which was finally identified as fraud, all so-called
‘supernatural occurrences’ must be carefully investigated by the Church
before they are given any credibility.”
There is more. In his EWTN interview, Schoeman
makes strange claims about his Jewish heritage, as well as proposing an
unprecedented connection between Judaism and Christianity, both of which are
very disturbing. He states:
First, I’m a “Jewish” convert…and
see the Catholic Church is nothing but post-messianic Judaism. Obviously, if
Jesus was the Jewish messiah, then the Catholic Church is the continuation of
Judaism after the Jewish messiah came….I see myself as nothing but a Jew who
has come into the fullness and correctness of Judaism, which is the Catholic
Church….Every Jew who has entered the Catholic Church doesn’t see it as a
conversion. They just see it as a Jew who has been wrong about who the Jewish
messiah was, to a Jew who is right…and all the them, including me…thinks this
makes you more Jewish, not less Jewish.
Where has the Catholic Church, as represented by
her magisterium, tradition and official interpretation of Scripture, either
past or present, ever taught that “the Catholic Church is nothing but
post-messianic Judaism” or the “continuation of Judaism”? Where has it ever
taught that Jews who join the Catholic Church are not really converts but
have merely come into the “fullness and correctness of Judaism”? There is no
such teaching in the Catholic Church, yet Schoeman asserts it as if it is
somewhere between common knowledge and dogma.
In the same EWTN interview, Mr. Schoeman claims
that Vatican II changed Catholic Church teaching on the Jews. As he puts it:
“It was Vatican II, which for the first time, so dogmatically, proclaimed the
innocence of the Jewish people, as a people. And it is precisely Vatican II
which, up to now, the SSPX has rejected the authority of.” His words are even
stronger when in the same interview he caricatured traditional Catholic
teaching on the Jews as a “…remnant of medieval, pseudo-Catholic
anti-Semitism dressed up in theological garb that some of the traditionalists
have kind of incorporated” …. “a vestigial appendage of medieval
anti-semitism that still has some root in the kind of right wing segments of
the Church.”
When Dr. Kevane saw this statement from Schoeman,
he said: “This is vicious. Both Schoeman and Moss indulge in a private kind
of interpretation of the Scriptures and of Vatican Council II whose sole
purpose is to support their own need to remain Jews. Are they therefore truly
Catholics?” In place of Pope Benedict
XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” it seems to be Mr. Schoeman’s express
intent to foster the idea that Catholic doctrine completely changed at
Vatican II, at which time the Church decided to give a blanket exoneration to
the Jewish people. At best, the concept is highly distorted. As Dr. Kevane
told David Moss: “Nowhere in ‘Nostra Aetate’ (The section in Vatican Council
II which deals with the relationship with non-Christian religions), is there
even a hint that the teaching of the Church has changed.” He is quite
correct. Vatican II, although perhaps more emphatically than in the past,
merely reiterated the same teaching that Catholic tradition maintained,
namely, “neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can
be charged with the crimes committed during his passion” (Nostra Aetate 4), for in no official
teaching, past or present, have the Jews ever been declared a “deicide
people” or blamed, as a race, for the death of Christ. The Catholic Church
has consistently taught that it is not the Jews of today who are responsible
for the death of Christ, but the Jewish leaders and their followers in 33 AD
who instigated his murder. In fact, the New Testament implies that a majority
of the Jews were involved in that instigation, even though it is said that
they did so in “ignorance” (Acts 3:17).
If Mr. Schoeman thinks otherwise, I challenge him to show us one official
statement from the Catholic magisterium that says what he claims.
An even more egregious instance in which Mr.
Schoeman could be accused of being “anti-Catholic” comes from the assertion
in his book, Salvation is from the Jews,
in which claims “Vatican II’s Nostra
Aetate and Pope John Paul II” taught against the doctrine of
“supersessionism – that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced (or
superseded, hence ‘supersessionism’), made null and void, by the New.” He adds that supersessionism “dominated
Christian theology for much of the past two thousand years” and that during
this whole span of time the traditional teaching was “erroneous” (page 352).
For the record, this is the same claim that the ADL and a number of Jewish
leaders make about Nostra Aetate
and John Paul II. But is it correct? Culture
Wars published an article in January 2008: The
Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? It contains conclusive evidence
that the Catholic Church has solemnly taught in its tradition, in Vatican II,
and in the teaching of John Paul II, that the Old Covenant has, indeed, been
superseded by the New Covenant. This fact was more or less confirmed for the
world when the United States bishops, by an official vote of 231 to 14 on
August 5, 2008, decided to remove an erroneous sentence from the United States Catholic Catechism for
Adults, which stated on page 131: “Thus the covenant that God made with
the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” But if we
accept Mr. Schoeman’s thesis, we would have to conclude that Nostra Aetate and John Paul II
“changed” the “two thousand” year-old Catholic doctrine on the Old Covenant.
If that is the case, then the Catholic Church just shot itself in the foot,
for it has proven, once and for all, that its traditional teaching and its
official doctrinal statements are worthless. They can be overturned at any
time by any future pope or council. So either Mr. Schoeman is wrong about Nostra Aetate or the Catholic Church
has been wrong for 2000 years about its own identity. Dr. Kevane saw the same
error in Moss and Schoeman’s teachings. He writes:
Not too long ago (March 2005), in
a public statement on EWTN, Dave Moss rejected the idea that the Church
replaced the people of Israel. He clearly identified the latter idea as an
‘erroneous theology’ that was taught for 2000 years by the Catholic Church.
He further stated that the Church no longer teaches that the people of Israel
are superseded. They are an eternal people with an irrevocable calling. How
can any individual declare that the Catholic Church (“…whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven…”) has taught erroneous theology for 2000
years. Surely, intended that way or not, this has to be the height of
arrogance. Both statements are heretical. The ‘irrevocable calling’ the Jews
have is the same as it is for the rest of us – to save their eternal souls.
To
show why I raise the allegation that Moss and Schoeman could be considered
“anti-Catholic” for these teachings, Dr. Kevane adds: “In one stroke he
[Moss] denied the Scriptures as inspired by God, the infallibility of the
Pope and the Ecumenical Councils, and the fact of Tradition…No Catholic can
say that the Church has held an erroneous theology for 2000 years and still
remain Catholic.” After he made this statement, Dr. Kevane went on to list
all the Scriptural, Magisterial and Traditional teaching against the “Old
Covenant is not revoked” assertions of Moss and Schoeman.
Incidentally, we might wonder why EWTN makes no
censorship of Moss and Schoeman’s erroneous statements. I don’t know the
precise reason, but I do know the leadership at EWTN and I believe much of
this laxity is due to EWTN’s shortage of academically qualified personnel to
sort out these theological issues, in combination with either being overly
enamored with Jewish converts or afraid to disagree with them for fear of
being accused of anti-Semitism, especially such programs as The Journey Home. To say the least, I
was shocked to find out when I signed up for Internet television (DTV) that
the “Description” for EWTN was the following: “EWTN is a live religious
channel that focuses on Christianity and Judaism.” For a secular television
programmer to notice that EWTN promotes Judaism along with Christianity
certainly raises suspicions as to where this professed Catholic station is
heading. Knowing Mother Angelica as I do, I believe she would be appalled at
the DTV description of EWTN, and equally appalled at the Judaistic
programming EWTN now offers.
Let’s pose another case in which Mr. Schoeman has
made errors in his Catholic teaching. As I have been saying for quite some
time, just the mere title of his book, “Salvation
is from the Jews,” is cause for alarm, for the simple fact that, after
Jesus died and rose, salvation no longer came from the Jews, but Schoeman
treats Jesus’ statement as if it is an ongoing reality. When Jesus spoke to
the Samaritan woman in John 4:22 and said “Salvation is of the Jews” he was on
the Old Testament side of the cross, and thus Jerusalem was still the place
in which God could be found for salvation, even as the Queen of Sheba
traveled to Jerusalem to hear the gospel from Solomon and thereby saved her
soul (Matt 12:42). But after Jesus rose, salvation came from the Catholic
Church, not the Jews. Unfortunately, there is no such disclaimer mentioned in
Mr. Schoeman’s book. Dr. Kevane agrees:
Dave Moss apparently aligns
himself with Roy Schoeman who makes the identical points in his book
“Salvation is from the Jews.” What he has written does not stand up to the
scrutiny of Catholic theology. It flies in the face of the definitive
statements of the Church. The title of the book is a heretical statement. It
interprets what Christ Himself said, using it as an invalid support of his
thesis. Christ made that statement to the Samaritan woman before he died on
the Cross, at a time when, indeed, salvation was from the Jews. However, once
he died on the Cross, salvation came uniquely from Jesus Christ Himself. This
is a twisting of the Scriptures in order to support an erroneous doctrine….In
his Preface to the book, Schoeman says (p. 9): ‘If there is one theological
issue that both Jews and Christians should be able to agree on, it is that
salvation is from the Jews….And Christians…have no choice but to believe
that…since those are the very words that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman
at the well.’ On the contrary, I couldn’t disagree strongly enough.
In fact, based on his view of John 4:22, Schoeman
proposes a thesis never before suggested, much less taught in Catholic
history. Whereas traditional teaching has said that the Old Covenant is
fulfilled or brought to fruition by the New, Schoeman reverses this and says
that “the New Covenant will be brought to fruition by the Old” (Salvation is from the Jews, p. 353). He
posits this novel idea because it coincides with his book title, “Salvation
is from the Jews.” Schoeman holds that the Jewish Old Covenant somehow
integrates with the New Covenant and allows salvation to come to the last of
earth’s Jews just before Christ’s return. The Church has never taught this
type of mixing and matching of the Old and New Covenants. If and when the
Jews are saved, it is only because of the New Covenant and has absolutely
nothing to do with the Old Covenant. Scripture calls it “old” (2Cor 3:14) precisely because it became aged and decrepit
and finally breathed its last breath at the cross of Christ. This is the
exact description of its demise given to us by the Hebrew writer: “When he
[Jeremiah in Jr. 31:31-33] speaks of a ‘new’ covenant, he declares the first
one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to
disappearing” (Heb. 8:13, NAB). In other words, the Old Covenant
had already grown old in Jeremiah’s day (circa 600 BC) because the Jews had
so badly abused it, and it finally “disappeared” when Christ began the New
Covenant (see also Heb. 7:18; 10:9; Col. 2:14-15; Eph. 2:14-15).
The confusion between the Old and New covenants is
bad enough, but in his book Schoeman also gives us three distinctly different
views of the Old Covenant. On page 129 he tells us it has been revoked. On
page 352 he tells us it is not revoked (and makes erroneous use of Nostra Aetate and John Paul II to back
up his claim), and on the next page, 353, he tells us that New Covenant will
be fulfilled by the Old Covenant. The Catholic Church has only taught one of
these, the one that appears on page 129.
CONCLUSION
Now, I point out all these theological errors in
the teachings of Roy Schoeman only to make one specific point in this
article. Let’s say I were an unyielding theological stickler and chose to
work with an arbitrary definition of what it is to be “anti-Catholic.” Let’s
say I was also quite disturbed by all the false concepts and inordinate
confusion Schoeman has perpetuated among thousands of Catholics. Could I not
accuse Mr. Schoeman of the same thing he has accused the SSPX, that is, that
his teaching “pretends to be Catholic theology, but is really very
distasteful,” and from that assessment also conclude that Mr. Schoeman is
“anti-Catholic,” just as he, without a working definition, has accused the
SSPX of being “anti-Semitic”? In fact, I could use Mr. Schoeman’s own words
that he used against the SSPX and merely cross out references to the SSPX and
replace them with the words “Jewish converts” or “David Moss and Roy
Schoeman” as follows:
…the head of the Society of
St. Pius X (or “SSPX) Jewish convert movement…emphasizing that the
Society Jewish converts can only speak authoritatively on matters of
‘faith and morals.’ However, most distressingly, it is precisely in those
matters of ‘faith and morals’ in which the Society Jewish converts
profess to be authoritative that the Society David Moss and Roy
Schoeman present some of its most virulently anti-Semitic
anti-Catholic teachings. The following articles from its their
websites purport to represent authentic Catholic teaching on the Jewish
people and the Catholic faith.
In fact, in light of all the errors Mr. Schoeman
has taught, he seems much more deserving of the label “anti-Catholic” than
the SSPX is deserving of the label “anti-Semitic.” But in order to confirm my
conclusion, I would also have to know whether Schoeman’s errors are
deliberate or inadvertent. Could his erroneous teachings merely be slips of
the theological pen, or perhaps poor education in Catholic theology? But they
could also be deliberate attempts to undermine Catholic doctrine and promote
Jewish thought. Perhaps Schoeman is just posing as a convert to Catholicism.
Perhaps he has a secret hatred for Catholics who criticize Jewish history and
ideas. Perhaps, perhaps. The truth is, “perhaps” is not good enough for me to
make a final and comprehensive judgment that labels Mr. Schoeman as an
“anti-Catholic.” Dr. Kevane seems to agree. He writes:
Let me digress a moment to say
that in the first pages of his book, Mr. Schoeman clearly is trying to be a
true Catholic. The same must be said for Dave Moss. And for that I salute
them. But Mr. Schoeman trips himself up, unfortunately, by endeavoring to
make a theological statement when he is clearly not a Catholic theologian.
That he is a Jewish theologian – perhaps. But he should be applying Catholic
theology in order to reach an acceptable Catholic conclusion….From these
considerations, it would appear that none (or very few) of the converted
Catholic Hebrews have undertaken an exhaustive study of Catholic theology.
There are too many superficialities in their writings and statements.
By the same token, I must insist that it is not
right for Mr. Schoeman to accuse the SSPX of anti-Semitism (or any Catholic
who criticizes Jewish religion, politics or social mores), not only because
he is making conclusions without a working definition of anti-Semitism, he
simply doesn’t know the hearts and motives of his critics. Accusing someone
of anti-Semitism is very serious business, because the accuser is essentially
concluding that he knows the heart of the person and has the authority to
declare him to be in mortal sin, and perhaps excommunicated. Does Mr.
Schoeman, a very young convert to the Catholic faith, want to carry that
heavy burden? One of the men he accuses, Fr. Denis Fahey, was one of the most
devout Catholic priests of the past century, long before the SSPX had their
troubles with Vatican II and the illicit 1988 consecrations. Fr. Fahey sought
earnestly to define anti-Semitism only so that Catholics would not be
hampered by arbitrary accusations from Jews who were using the label to
stigmatize Catholics from teaching the Catholic faith and pointing out the
anti-Christian tenets in Jewish teachings and practices. But unlike Fr.
Fahey, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Mr. Schoeman has not given us a
working definition of anti-Semitism. Since he hasn’t, then he is only adding
to the confusion he has already perpetuated among Catholics. Consequently, he
is raising a generation of Catholics who, on little more than a hunch, will
think nothing of accusing someone of the mortal sin of anti-Semitism. But
without proper definitions, the allegations become mere aspersions; and even
more serious, those aspersions turn into the mortal sin of bearing false
witness. Unfortunately, the unwritten definition of anti-Semitism with which
Mr. Schoeman seems to be working, and the definition that is most popular
among Jewish rabbis and political pundits today is: Anything negative said
about the Jews, whether it is true or not, is, ipso facto, anti-Semitism. This must stop, and Catholics must
take the lead in teaching the world the true nature of anti-Semitism. Last
but not least, new converts such as Roy Schoeman and David Moss should spend
a number of years learning the Catholic faith before they are given a
platform to teach it. 
Robert A. Sungenis,
Ph.D. is
president of The Bellarmine
Report, formerly Catholic Apologetics International.
This article was published in the July/August 2009 issue
of Culture Wars magazine.
Index of SSPX articles from Fidelity
and Culture Wars Magazines
 L'affaire Williamson: The Catholic Church and Holocaust Denial, an e-book by E. Michael Jones. As soon as the news leaked that the Catholic Church was going to lift the excommunications of four Society of St. Pius X bishops, reports that one, Bishop Richard Williamson, was a "Holocaust denier" began circulating. News reports kept confusing the Church’s focus on the sin of schism with the unforgivable secular sins, "Holocaust denial" and anti-Semitism. Why? Holocaust denial is another word for Jewish control of discourse, especially historical discourse about World War II. A historian who publishes something a powerful Jew, which is to say a Jew with powerful backers, dislikes, will be punished. Blacking listing and firing are typical punishments. L'affaire Williamson describes and defies the artificial rules that control discourse, exposing fissions within society and the Church. $5.99. Read
More/Buy
|
