Remnant News Watch

ADL vs. Christmas

Once again, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) has made available to schools and government institutions its guidelines for negotiating what they have christened the “December Dilemma.” According to a November 9, 2004 ADL press release, “Each December schools and teachers are confronted with the question of how to approach the holidays without favoring one religious faith over another or making some students feel uncomfortable because their religious background is different from others.” As a result, the ADL provides materials to such institutions which purport to explain “how to keep public recognition of the December holidays constitutionally permissible.” Topics addressed in the ADL’s Guidelines include:

The difference between practicing religion and teaching about religion;
Guidelines for holiday assemblies, concerts and other public school activities where religious themes or music may be performed;
Choosing appropriate holiday symbols to decorate school grounds;
Choosing appropriate holiday activities;
Understanding what can – and cannot – be displayed on city property.

Lumping Christmas and Chanukah together under the blanket term “December holidays,” the ADL press release alleges that the month of December “poses a unique challenge for public schools and government institutions.” "We want schools to understand the guidelines and to know that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the December holidays,” says ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, “so long as it is done with sensitivity, with respect, and always with an understanding of the importance of the separation of church and state."

In letters sent to school districts nationwide and distributed through the ADL's 30 regional offices, the ADL admonishes schools to be cautious in how they choose to employ religious symbols and teach about the holidays, and offers suggestions to help "create a school environment that celebrates diversity by respecting different points of view concerning religion." "When a school does choose to acknowledge the December holidays,” states the letter, “it is essential that the school must never appear to endorse religion over non-religion or one particular religious faith over another."

Comment: When I was growing up, non-Christians seemed to be made of sterner stuff than their tender modern counterparts. Back then, a non-Christian could walk by a Nativity scene, or a “Merry Christmas” sign, and not fall to the ground in a fit of apoplexy over the injustice of it all!

The ADL “December dilemma” guidelines are a perfect measuring-stick proving just how utterly neurotic the “tolerance” movement has become. As each December draws near, one can almost see the beads of sweat forming on the furrowed brows of the “tolerance gurus.” For this is the time when certain “tolerance-challenged” individuals will try to bring HIM back into the public forum, when songs praising HIS glory begin to resurface, when His very title, “Christ,” becomes part of an everyday familiar greeting for a time. But are the ADL Guidelines really about “tolerance,” or are they about the meanest sort of IN-tolerance – i.e., the desire to wipe the very memory of the Incarnate Word from the public sector? A few examples from the ADL Guidelines will suffice.

Regarding holiday displays, the Guidelines state: “It may be permissible to have students act out a play which contains one scene where a family is shown opening presents on Christmas morning. However, school-sponsorship of a play about the birth of Jesus would be impermissible because such performances are inherently affirmations of a certain religious point of view.” Of course, Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, isn’t it? But, apparently, that is the one thing which cannot be depicted! For a group that believes children should be exposed to many different beliefs, the ADL has an odd way of showing it.

As for holiday music? The Guidelines state: “It would not be appropriate for a public school choir to perform a concert dominated by the songs of a single religious tradition.” Got that? You cannot hold a Christmas concert featuring only Christmas songs! Some young music-lovers in the audience may feel “excluded.”

Here’s my favorite—the Guidelines on the use of religious symbols: “In the context of displays on public property, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Christmas crèche standing alone is impermissible, but a Christmas tree is permissible because it has become such a secular symbol of the winter holiday season. It also has found that a Chanukah menorah is a symbol with both secular and religious meanings, and its display on public property within a predominantly secular display is permissible.”

Once again, inconsistency in logic is an indicator of ill will. The menorah may be used by many non-observant Jews as a holiday symbol, but its origins come from the Old Testament. It commemorates the victory of the Maccabees and the miraculous burning of a small amount of ritual oil for eight days. Rabbis teach that the menorah should be placed in a window “to commemorate the miracle,” while the prayers of blessing for the candles are addressed to the “Lord our God, King of the Universe.”

Yes, the menorah is, indeed, a religious symbol. But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn the ADL’s illogic back on their heads. It’s no secret that, in today’s society, the Cross has been treated as a secular symbol by many. It is seen reproduced in earrings, pendants, jewelry, tattoos, etc., worn by those with no interest in Jesus Christ. By the ADL’s own reckoning, then, the Cross should be allowed to be displayed in public wherever a menorah is displayed.

Starting off with a bit of crowing over the fact that the First Amendment has “led courts to ban such plainly coercive religious activities in public schools as organized prayer and the teaching of creationism,” the ADL’s ”December dilemma” Guidelines go on to posit a set of rather unforgiving rules for religious observances, rules which contain all the human sentiment of a piece of petrified wood. If these are the new arbiters of morality for America, our nation is in for very “unhappy holidays.”

The Society of St. John Suppressed in Scranton

Citing reports of sexual misconduct and serious financial problems, Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pennsylvania has suppressed the Society of St. John. The group, founded in Scranton in 1998 with the approval of then-Bishop James Timlin, has stated that, in response to Pope John Paul II’s call for a “New Evangelization,” they seek “a renewal of faith” via a return to Tradition and the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Society claims a fourfold “charism”: the solemn use of the traditional Roman rite; the renewal of priestly life; a classical education that opens the mind and heart to universal truths; and the formation of small cities with a true culture, where all can live in the peace of Christ.

Although the Society of St. John was only established in the year 1998, the November 29, 2004 edition of Catholic World News reported that “by 2002, the Society was beset with problems involving allegations of financial and sexual misconduct. Critics—including disaffected former members—cited lavish spending at the Society's rural Pennsylvania headquarters, and reports that adolescent boys were given alcohol and invited for overnight stays with the group's leaders.”

In a canonical decree published on November 25, 2004 in the diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Light, Bishop Martino announced the suppression of the Society. His announcement stated that, after 6 years of operation, "the Society has shown no progress in attaining its stated purposes," and had become "principally a debt servicing operation." He also revealed that the Scranton diocese had backed a $2.6 million loan to cover some of the Society's debts. According to the Catholic News Service (Dec. 1, 2004), a 2002 lawsuit filed against the Society alleges that it had raised more than $5 million from donors. The suit was filed by the corporation formed in 2000 to establish a Catholic liberal arts college under Society auspices, a project the society subsequently abandoned.

Although Bishop Martino made no direct response to accusations that Society leaders had molested students at a school run by the group, Father Carlos Urritigoity (Superior-General) and Father Eric Ensley (Chancellor), founding members of the Society, were removed from active leadership of the Society by Bishop Timlin early in 2002, after he had received complaints of sexual misconduct by the two priests.

According to reporter Mark Guydish of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Times-Leader, “a civil lawsuit filed by a man identified as ‘John Doe’ resulted in public release of depositions that describe, often in lurid detail, abuse by the two [Frs. Urritigoity and Ensley] while Doe was a teen.” Bishop Martino’s decree of suppression notes that, even though “no criminal charges have been filed and the priests have denied the charges ... there have been ‘acts of commission and omission by the members of the society in general that have given rise to these allegations’."

Comment: Rod Dreher, in his article “Scranton Scandal” (National Review Online, Feb. 7, 2002) quoted Dr. Jeffrey Bond, who had been appointed president of the college planned by the Society of St. John, but who instead has become the Society’s chief opponent after he discovered the sexual improprieties committed by Frs. Urritigoity and Ensley. Dr. Bond has accused Bishop Timlin of looking the other way in the face of evidence of both the Society’s financial mismanagement and sexual misconduct. Bond had obtained a letter purportedly sent by a Society of St. Pius X seminary in Argentina to American SSPX members warning them that Fr. Urritigoity had been caught on numerous occasions engaging in homosexual activity while a seminarian there.

This disturbing information was forwarded to then-Bishop Timlin. "Why did I have to be the one to find this out about Fr. Urritigoity's past?" asks Dr. Bond. "If Bishop Timlin had bothered to do a background check before he let this guy work with kids, as the diocesan policy says he's supposed to, he would have found it out on his own." In January of 2002, after he had received the information from Dr. Bond, Bishop Timlin told the media that he had reassigned — but not suspended — the two leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. John, pending the outcome of an investigation into the purported sexual molestation of a young man, who was a minor at the time of the alleged crime. “I know for a fact that the leadership of the society is currently in Rome seeking an appeal,” states Rev. Thomas Petro, pastor of St. Ann’s Church in Shohola, as quoted in the December 2-8, 2004 edition of The River Reporter (Narrowsburg, NY). Rev. Petro does not expect the Vatican to reverse the ruling of the local bishop.

“As welcome as the bishop’s long overdue decree [Bishop Martino’s decree suppressing the Society of St. John] is, it is important to note that it is only the first step on the road to justice,” says Dr. Bond. “The priests of the suppressed Society of St. John must now be laicized so that they may no longer use the authority of the Roman collar to harm young souls. Moreover, all of their victims must be justly compensated for the wrong done to them. This will happen only when the Diocese of Scranton ceases its legal maneuvering and begins to operate according to the divine law of Jesus Christ.”

Ecumenism: On the Fast Track to Nowhere

The recent handing-over of the relics of Sts. John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazienzen to the schismatic Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I by Pope John Paul II was perceived to be “a sign of hope” to Cardinal Edward Cassidy, the 80-year-old retired president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian unity. In a Zenit interview (Nov. 28, 2004), when asked what sort of progress has been made by the Catholic Church in the area of ecumenism since the Second Vatican Council, Cassidy replied:

A tremendous amount certainly. I mean, up until then, our attitude in general toward the other Churches was that, well, "they could come home any time they wished … we were ready to receive them." The Vatican Council radically changed that attitude by saying: "No, we have to go out to our other brothers and sisters because Christ wants the unity of the Church."

The Cardinal added that working for unity also means creating a relationship with the other churches “by which they are ready then to consider the possibility of entering into full communion with us.” While stating his belief that relationships with other Churches have “no doubt” improved, Cassidy acknowledged that “there will continue to be difficulties.” The biggest problem, he says, is that “we still have a lot to do in our own Church before the decisions of the Second Vatican Council will have entered right down into the life of our Church so that people really understand what we are trying to do and why we are doing it .... we have to work in our own Church to bring the council more alive in the life of the parishes, the life of the diocese and the life of the nations.”

Comment: Anyone who’s read Christopher Ferrara’s and Thomas Woods’ modern classic, “The Great Facade,” will recognize in Cardinal Cassidy’s statements one of the classic ploys employed by the upholders of said facade – namely, Vatican II still hasn’t “trickled down” to the masses. We are supposed to believe that, even after almost 40 – forty – years, the true “wealth” (gasp!) of the Council still lies dormant, awaiting some sort of mass epiphany that lies somewhere, sometime down the road ... hopefully ... in time to come ... someday ... in the not too distant future ... yada-yada ....

The duplicity continues to amaze. You wouldn’t buy a used-car from someone who spoke in such vague, unencouraging words, yet you are supposed to entrust your eternal souls to such men! And, of course, as happens rarely, the only time any of them see the truth is when they can look at themselves in a mirror and say: “The trouble is, the Council DID trickle down to all the parishes!”

The most curious statement made by Cardinal Cassidy in the Zenit interview is his contention that the Church must create a “relationship” with the other churches whereby these non-Catholics will suddenly attain an insatiable desire to convert to Catholicism!

Think about this. At the Assisi meetings and during his talks to Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., Pope John Paul II has consistently confirmed them in their non-Catholic beliefs. Why should someone who has been practicing his non-Catholic religion all of his life, who is comfortable in it, whose family are practitioners, whose society embraces it – why should someone leave that religion to embrace a new one, let alone a scandal-plagued one, if his own belief will suffice for salvation? There is absolutely no point in converting in such a scenario. The new definition for “ecumenism” should read “the practice by which the Catholic Faith concedes more and more of her doctrinal patrimony in the name of an unattainable unity.”

“Unattainable?” Does that sound too pessimistic? Look at the very attitude of the Church’s leading ecumaniacs, from the top down. They can’t tell you what ecclesial form this new ecumenical unity will take. They can’t tell you how it will come about. They can’t tell you when. They have no conception of what the unified entity they wish to engender will be; they just know it must happen! It’s scary, mad-scientist talk, right out of an old Universal horror film. It would be so much easier simply to return to the Church’s traditional view of ecumenism, but that would be to admit 40 years’ worth of unmitigated failure at the highest levels of our Catholic hierarchy. Don’t look for that anytime soon.