Rabbi Di Segni and the Late Pope John Paul

Pope Benedict Welcomes Rome’s Chief Rabbi

Zenit reports (Jan. 16, 2006) that Pope Benedict XVI welcomed Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, and a Jewish delegation on the eve of Italy’s national day to further Catholic-Jewish dialogue.

In an audience attended by Di Segni and the Jewish delegation, the Holy Father delivered an address which he began with the greeting, “Shalom!” He then quoted from The Book of Exodus: "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the Lord God is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation" (12:2). Commenting upon this text, the Pope told the Jewish delegation, “Your visit fills me with joy, and it motivates me to renew with you this song of thanksgiving for salvation.”

Telling the members of the Jewish community that “the Catholic Church is close to you and is your friend,” Pope Benedict continued:

The people of Israel have been liberated many times from the hands of their enemies and, in times of anti-Semitism, in the dramatic moments of the Shoah, the hand of the Almighty guided and sustained them. The favor of the God of the Covenant has always accompanied them, giving them the strength to overcome trials. Your Jewish community, present in the city of Rome for more than 2,000 years, can also bear witness to this divine loving attention.

Addressing Riccardo Di Segni as “Esteemed Lord Chief Rabbi,” the Vicar of Christ said, “To you I express my heartfelt best wishes for your mission and assure you of both my and my collaborators' esteem and cordial friendship.”

Referring to relations between the Catholic Church and Judaism promoted by John Paul II, Rabbi Di Segni told Pope Benedict, "We know that your thoughts had a decisive role in the years of the last pontificate," adding that his community was convinced Benedict would continue along the lines of his predecessor. "This conviction of ours," continued Di Segni, "is confirmed by your already numerous acts, by your statements, by the sensitivity shown in the denunciation of past and present anti-Semitism, by the condemnation of fundamentalist terrorism, and by the attention to the state of Israel, which for the whole Jewish people is an essential and central reference."

While meeting with the Holy Father, Rabbi Di Segni invited Benedict XVI to visit Rome's main synagogue on the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's historic visit to that temple on April 13, 1986. The Pope was informed that he was “always welcome” to visit the synagogue.

Comment: In April of 2005, as Pope John Paul II lay dying, Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni visited San Pietro Plaza to recite Psalms for the health of John Paul. “The plaza, not the Church,” stressed Di Segni, who said that “after years of ghettoization and incitement, the Jews of Rome are naturally suspicious of the pope.” He also expressed his opinion that “the pope may have visited the synagogue, but the time is not yet ripe for the rabbi to visit the church.” It was awfully kind of Di Segni to seize the opportunity of a dying Pope to declare a little “one-upmanship” in the interreligious arena.

Later that year, in November, Di Segni refused to attend a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate. He refused to attend because of the presence there of one of the keynote speakers, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, a Jewish convert to Catholicism. Di Segni defended his rank display of bigotry by saying that his actions were “not a protest, but an invitation to reflect on the meaning of dialogue," explaining that “if it means losing one's identity and crossing over to the other side, then it's not dialogue." In short, Jewish Catholics Need Not Apply.

As for the Vatican’s statements expressing the Church’s “past wrongs” against the Jews? Not good enough. Di Segni said they bordered on "self-absolution." He has also criticized the beatifications of Edith Stein and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document, Dominus Iesus, which accords some meager place of prominence to the Catholic Church in the spiritual scheme of things.

In an interview with the European Jewish Press, Rabbi Di Segni spoke of his meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. After unapologetically referred to his snubbing of Cardinal Lustiger as “last fall’s incident,” Di Segni stated the following:

We touched on many questions, but I think that one point above all deserves to be underlined. The meeting took place in a truly friendly atmosphere and this allowed us to swiftly go over all the matters, both the easy and the more complex issues. I believe that the more you are aware of who you are, the more you allow your counterpart to appreciate your position.

As long as it is the Jewish community of Rome which calls the shots, and as long as the Church’s shepherds obligingly “appreciate the position” which denies Jesus Christ and His Church, then things will remain “friendly.” Rabbi Di Segni has had nothing good to say about the Catholic Church. On the contrary, his animosity towards Catholicism is evident throughout his interviews. It is not an inspiring sight to see the Vicar of Christ treating such a person as an equal, let alone a “friend.”

Film Critic Slandered By Homosexual Activists

Veteran film critic Gene Shalit, who has been reviewing films for 31 years on NBC’s Today Show, was accused by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) of promoting “defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience,” because of comments he made while reviewing the recent “gay cowboy” film, Brokeback Mountain. During the review, which aired on January 5th, Shalit offered this analysis of the relationship between the film’s lead characters, Ennis Del Mar (portrayed by Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal): 

In Brokeback Mountain, Ennis and Jack are just-met strangers guarding sheep in Wyoming. Sheer boredom!…The sheep do nothing special as they bleat around the bush. But Jack and Ennis do something special...[details deleted by Remnant editor]. Summer ends, the sheep take it on the lam, Jack and Ennis part ways…Years pass, each is in a bleak marriage. Jack, who strikes me as a sexual predator, tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts.

GLAAD labeled Shalit’s analysis as a “bizarre characterization of Jack as a ‘predator’ and Ennis as a victim,” a characterization which “reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general." In an e-mail message sent to fellow homosexual activists, GLAAD wrote that Shalit’s “baseless branding of Jack as a 'sexual predator' merely because he is romantically interested in someone of the same sex is defamatory, ignorant and irresponsible.” The message also took NBC to task for having provided Shalit with “a platform for his gratuitously offensive comments."

On January 10th, Gene Shalit released a statement of apology. Although he defended his right as a film critic to present his own views of the film and the actions of the film's fictional characters, Shalit expressed regret for having “angered, agitated, and hurt many people” by using a word “that many in the gay community consider incendiary.” GLAAD, in turn, thanked and applauded Mr. Shalit for “clarifying his comments and making clear that he did not intend his words to be defamatory to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community,” and urged the people on its mailing-list to write messages of appreciation to Shalit.

Comment: In the last Remnant News Watch column, I included an item on Britain’s LGBT History Month campaign, and the trouble some Brits were finding themselves in merely because they dared question the homosexual agenda behind such campaigns. Comparing these homosexual activists to a character from a classic Twilight Zone episode, who had the nasty habit of destroying anyone who didn’t agree with him, I wrote that the current crop of homosexual activists “will brook neither opposition nor disagreement .... in fact, they will not even tolerate independent thought.”

As though to put a period at the end of that thought comes this story concerning Gene Shalit and Brokeback Mountain. Shalit’s crime? He dared to suggest that a homosexual character was anything less than a noble, long-suffering hero. He dared to find a flaw in the character of “Jack.” Worse than that, he said it all out loud.

But there is one element to this story that speaks volumes about the agenda behind such organizations as GLAAD. Far from having ever expressed any negative thoughts on homosexuality, Gene Shalit bent over backwards to express his full acceptance of it. Shalit’s son, Peter, a physician, is a homosexual. And, back in October of 1997, Shalit wrote on article about his son for The Advocate, the “national gay and lesbian news magazine.” It is a fawning, affectionate piece, packed with assurances that being gay is a-ok, expressing concern over anti-homosexual prejudice, and proudly telling readers that Peter “and his partner have been together for 17 years.”

Are we supposed to think that the members of GLAAD actually believe this creampuff was hawking “anti-gay prejudice” on the Today Show? They’re not that dumb. But, apparently, they do believe in stretching their wings and gauging their influence. The case of Gene Shalit is a classic example of this, for here, even someone who publicly worships at the “gay is cool with me” altar was chastised when he dared to express an independent thought.

By the way, as the Academy Awards draw near, we can expect to see an increase in the idiocy surrounding Brokeback Mountain. A January 30, 2006 Associated Press article about the latest Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards lamented that the film, Crash, beat out the “gay cowboy western” for the Overall Cast Award. “Its loss to Crash could prove a speed bump on the film's path toward becoming the first explicitly gay-themed movie to win a best picture award at the Oscars,” reads the AP report, “but Brokeback Mountain has dominated earlier Hollywood honors, so it will likely continue to be considered the favorite.” The AP needn’t worry. Brokeback Mountain has earned Oscar nominations in eight categories, including best picture, director, actor, supporting actor and actress, and adapted screenplay.

Hollywood & The Virgin Mary

Variety reports (Jan. 24, 2006) that New Line Cinema has launched development of a feature film version of the story of the Virgin Mary. The script for the film, Nativity, was written by Mike Rich, who also scripted Finding Forrester, The Rookie, and Radio.

Rich told Daily Variety that his script for Nativity covers a two-year period of Mary and Joseph's life, culminating in their leaving Nazareth and journeying 100 miles to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus. The story is aimed at fleshing out key characters such as King Herod; John the Baptist's parents, Zachariah and Elizabeth; the shepherds who were witness to Jesus' birth; and the arrival of the three kings from the Orient.

 New Line’s purchase of Rich’s script is described as a “pre-emptive purchase,” since the company’s interest in the project is influenced by the phenomenal box-office success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. "You can't ignore a film that does $600 million in global box office," said Rich. The author believes that the story told in Nativity “is a natural bookend to The Passion,” that it is “challenging,” “compelling” and contains “the timeless themes of hope, inspiration, doubt and fear.”

New Line Cinema, a unit of Time Warner, is the oldest independent film company in the world. It has been a pioneer in franchise filming and its Lord of the Rings trilogy is the most successful film franchise in history. The Nativity project is currently in the development stage. To date, no producer, director or actors have been attached to it, nor has a final budget been set. As a result, the film is unlikely to be ready for release before late 2007.

Comment: Lest anyone be tempted to welcome the news of a major motion picture treatment of Mary and Joseph, there is a bit of background information worth mentioning. Mike Rich, the author of the Nativity script, says he got the idea for the film back in December 2004, when both Time and Newsweek magazines featured cover stories concerning the “historical truths” surrounding the birth of Jesus. After doing “research,” he pitched the film idea to New Line in late 2005 and wrote the script "very quickly" in December.

The same thing happens every December, like clockwork. News magazines, such as Time and Newsweek, as well as both network and cable television stations, release special editions purporting to tell us the “historical truths” about the birth of Jesus. Illustrated with reproductions of beautiful Renaissance paintings in order to make the fare more palatable to the consumer, these historical documentaries parrot the same lies ad nauseam: The Virgin Mary was either an adulteress, or the victim of sexual assault; Or perhaps, St. Joseph was Jesus’ dad, after all; Jesus was not Divine; the Gospel accounts of angels, shepherds and magi were just so much pretty fluff. We might even learn that Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. They can’t even leave that alone. Backed by the testimonies of apostate priests and feminist nuns, these historical documentaries feature journalists and narrators running in third-gear “sincerity mode.” Hey, they’re really after the truth,  folks!

Granted, the film is still in the development stage. But, if screenwriter Mike Rich has based his research for Nativity on the nonsensical theological/historical tirades of Time and Newsweek magazines, what can his film turn out to be but yet another run-of-the-mill “Sacrilege Special,” albeit with a higher budget and better production value? And, again, we witness the pathetic spectacle of Hollywood trying to ride Mel Gibson’s coattails, while remaining both oblivious and hostile to the true Spirit which animated The Passion of The Christ.

Vatican Archives Chronicle St. Peter’s Construction

“For every sack of cement that was purchased, for every block of stone quarried and hauled to Rome, architects in charge of building St. Peter's Basilica filled out and filed away receipts and penned detailed notations in thick, bound ledgers,” writes Carol Glatz of the Catholic News Service (Jan. 13, 2006).

Located on an upper floor near the back of St. Peter’s Basilica, overlooking the organ pipes, the climate-controlled rooms housing the archives of the Fabbrica di San Pietro, the Vatican office responsible for the basilica's construction matters, contain more than 10,000 pieces of parchment, documents, slips and scraps of paper, all catalogued and tucked away in fat, hardcover volumes. Each volume, bursting with notes and folios, is wrapped with yellowed ribbon or graying twine and stands in unlocked glass cabinets that line the archive's octagon-shaped rooms.

Included in these volumes are such artifacts as a Renaissance master's to-do list, crinkled pay stubs and requests addressed to patrons holding the purse strings. Donato Bramante, Raphael, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Carlo Maderno, Giovanni Bernini and Francesco Borromini's handwritten notes, instructions, reports and requests are all housed there. These Renaissance and Baroque artists each had a hand in the design or building of St. Peter's Basilica, whose construction began 500 years ago on April 18, 1506. That was the day that Pope Julius II set the first cornerstone of the new basilica.

Construction on the basilica lasted more than 100 years, and work was sometimes stalled as earlier plans and designs were scrapped or revised by successive architects. Antonio da San Gallo the Younger, for example, wrote a letter to the pope criticizing what Raphael, San Gallo's predecessor, had done, complaining that “a ton of money was being wasted and the work was being done poorly.”

But Michelangelo, head architect of the project from 1546-1564, later tossed out San Gallo's own blueprint for the basilica, saying the design was too elaborate and created too many dark, winding corridors. He felt that the design would create too many hiding places for prowling pickpockets and not enough natural light to help pilgrims see if they were getting counterfeit coins with their change. Michelangelo, who, like many people involved in the project, never lived to see the Church completed in 1620, told his papal patron that he could create a more luminous and far simpler basilica in less time, and his design was accepted.

One of the Fabbrica di San Pietro archive's most prized pieces is a letter dated Feb. 18, 1562, in which Michelangelo tells the cardinals in charge of the Fabbrica that they should hire his friend, Pietro Luigi, as head supervisor of the workers. Knowing that the idea would not be well received, since another individual was already drawing a salary as foreman, Michelangelo wrote in the letter, "If you don't want to do it, then I will personally" pay the man's salary "because I am not working to make money; for St. Peter, I dedicate my body and soul."

Although many of the notations included in the archives’ volumes consist of mundane information which would not have amazed anyone at the time they were written, modern scholars relish every detail – such as entries concerning the washerwoman, Pacifica de' Crescioni, who hauled travertine blocks with her cart from a nearby quarry to the construction site, or Victoria Pericali, a glass cutter, who cut enamel pieces for some of the basilica's two and a half acres of mosaics.