Rabbi Says Jews Should Study New Testament

In a book he plans to publish next year, Modern Jews Engage the New Testament: Enhancing Jewish Well-Being in a Christian Environment, Rabbi Michael Cook presents an education plan on the New Testament through which Jews can learn enough to answer "why they process it differently from Christians." Cook, a professor of Judeo-Christian studies at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, is currently the only American rabbi holding a full professorial chair in the New Testament.

In an April 14, 2006 article in The Forward, titled “Time To Teach Jews Gospel Dynamics,” Cook writes that, during the period in which the Gospels were written, “the early rabbis were preoccupied with creating and consolidating a viable Judaism from the ashes of the Temple's destruction by Rome.” He says:

The only "Jesus" of whom the rabbis knew was the anti-Jewish image of him the Gospel writers had created, an image that mirrored their negativity toward those Jews of their own day who were rejecting Christianity. The rabbis had no reason to think of disengaging a real Jesus from the Gospels' later portrait of him — these rabbis had neither the mind-set to suspect such a disparity nor any method for resolving it.

Thus, concludes Cook, “the figure of Jesus — who had lived and died a Jew, who had neither founded Christianity nor known of Christian theology — was now processed by the rabbis as one ‘who deceived and led Israel astray’. Given that Jesus' anti-Jewish makeover by the Gospel writers was so complete, the historical figure of Jesus was already largely eclipsed, leaving the rabbis with no reliable inkling of who he had been, a scenario that has been concretized for all time since.”

Rabbi Cook believes that the New Testament has been “the greatest single external determinant of Jewish history,” that it has caused Jews “grievous problems and even innumerable deaths, not to mention generating anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish stereotyping,” and that, today, “it remains the cause of societal pressures during Christian holy day seasons and a source of confusion for Jews targeted by Christian missionaries and millennialists.” Therefore, he concludes that engaging the New Testament can be both “therapeutic and empowering for Jews.”

Comment: From The Jefferson Bible to The Jesus Seminar, Our Lord’s detractors in later centuries have revived ancient heresies under a “scientific” guise – i.e., the “historical” (or real) Jesus as opposed to the Catholic Jesus of myth and legend. Were Rabbi Cook the scholar he claims to be, he would realize that his latest attempt is doomed to failure, for the landscape of history is littered with the failures of those who foolishly sought to destroy Jesus Christ.

If the name sounds familiar, Cook was a member of the infamous “Nervous Nine” – i.e., the “Ad Hoc Scholars Group” that helped generate the hysteria over Mel Gibson’s Passion. His tack was to claim that the film was bad for “the future of Catholic-Jewish trust.” In The Jewish Week (Dec. 26, 2003), he complained that, perhaps, Jews weren’t as high on the Vatican’s “priority list” as they had hoped, and offered the not-so-veiled threat that, “in their own sense of abandonment, Jews may very well abandon the venture of Catholic-Jewish understanding.”

It is far from surprising, then, that Cook should begin a “campaign” to enlighten his fellow Jews regarding the New Testament, when this enlightenment consists of a dismissal of Catholicism’s sacred texts as skewed, unreliable, dangerous hate-speech. In the philosophy of Cook and his fellows, the only basis for “Catholic-Jewish trust” is Catholic denial of the Gospels, and of the Jesus portrayed therein. Let’s face it. If the Gospels are nothing more than anti-Jewish propaganda (paradoxically, written by faithful Jews – figure that one out!), then we can’t really know what that Jesus fellow actually said or did, anyway.

“Catholic-Jewish Dialogue” is, of course, nothing but an illusion. The Jewish activists are well aware of this. They are asked to give up nothing for the sake of this dialogue, while Catholics must cede ever more  territory – from a belief in the Divine inspiration of the Gospels to the very idea that Jesus Christ is necessary. The manner in which both parties approach the Bible says it all. While Catholics can accept the Divine inspiration and the veracity of both the Old and New Testaments, the only course left open to the Jewish side of the dialogue is, not only to reject, but to condemn, the New Testament.

In the end, Rabbi Cook wants his fellow Jews to became acquainted with the New Testament, not for spiritual enlightenment or truth (which is the respectful manner in which a Catholic will approach the Old Testament), but so that they will be better able to dismantle and condemn it. In the end, though, the plan may backfire. It would be a fitting irony if Rabbi Cook’s attempt to unseat Christ led, instead, to a few unexpected conversions.

Attorney Claims 70% of U.S. Bishops Are Homosexual

An April 20, 2006 article posted at Spero News by Matt Abbott features a statement by Catholic attorney Sharon Bourassa regarding the situation concerning homosexual priests in the Miami archdiocese and the nation at large. Bourassa relates that, on March 21, 2006, Stephen Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) drove from Illinois to Fort Lauderdale to meet with Christifidelis members from several parishes regarding strategies for dealing with the “gay subculture” that has infiltrated the Miami archdiocese (as well as many other dioceses across the U.S.), abuse of parish monies, corruption, and non-adherence to Catholic teaching.

According to a group of priests “who remain faithful to Rome,” writes Bourassa, 90 percent of  priests in the Miami archdiocese are non-celibate homosexuals who own luxury properties. They are known to the hierarchy, and they are bringing their agenda into all levels of the archdiocese:

This 90 percent figure ... is in the parishes, grammar schools, hospitals, nursing homes, the chancery, high schools and colleges. One priest told us if the non-celibate gays were removed, we would have only ten Catholic churches in union with Rome. What we see is not what is. The good priests who keep in contact with me say that 70 percent of the U.S. bishops are homosexual. Five of the South Florida bishops are homosexual. This is very difficult for the heterosexual priests in the archdiocese.

Stephen Brady suggested that concerned parishioners write press releases after gathering evidence of misconduct (and has offered to help with these releases), and obtain parish directories so that RCF can get its message across to the archdiocese by sending them postcards. He also said, “Follow the garbage” – i.e., pick up the trash left outside churches, rectories and luxury homes. This is how Brady found a bishop on a pornographic Web site.

Comment: I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard a complacent Trad proclaim magisterially that Traditionalist Catholics should have nothing to do with the post-conciliar Church. “They’re not Catholic anymore,” goes the reasoning, “so forget about ‘em!” I can’t help wondering where we would be today had the early Church Fathers and defenders of the Faith felt the same way. Since when has the ostrich become the official bird of the Church Militant? If the Faith isn’t worth fighting for, then what is?

The “Lavender Mafia” in the Church is powerful beyond belief. We don’t need statistics, just a pair of good eyes, to recognize this. And, because of their agenda, people (and not just children, but adults as well) are getting hurt. Last year, attorney Sharon Bourassa came to the defense of Father Andrew Dowgiert, who was fired from All Saints Church in Miami.

Fr. Dowgiert’s “crime” was a threat to complain to the archbishop about the overspending of monies at All Saints. The pastor of the church was actively “gay” and was living with his boyfriend, a former seminarian, in the house they owned in Miami. Fr. Dowgiert eventually dropped his lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Miami.

In a January 2006 statement, Sharon Bourassa wrote: "Father Andrew Dowgiert has instructed his attorneys to withdraw their appeal of his case. He has lost hope and has stated that his brother priests did not openly speak out against the Archdiocese of Miami for fear of swift retribution from Archbishop Favalora and the current hierarchy.” This is only one case, out of many, in which good priests have been attacked for their opposition to the homosexual agenda.

While working as an “itinerant” catechist/seminarian in the Neo-Catechumenal Way, I had occasion to visit parishes in several different states. The number of blatantly homosexual individuals parading about some of these rectories was quite noticeable. I remember one individual, introduced to us as the church “organist,” clad in tee-shirt and short-shorts, who leaned against a doorpost and smirked at us with a grin that could only be described as “triumphant.”

Catholic individuals like Stephen Brady and Sharon  Bourassa could simply hide away in an independent Trad chapel somewhere and say, “We’re the true Church. Don’t bother with those conciliarist impostors.” But they know that souls are at stake, and they’re fighting one of the few battles really worth fighting these days.

Father James Haley, a priest in the diocese of Arlington, Virginia, suspended by Bishop Paul Loverde for testifying about the immoral practices (homosexuality, embezzling and pornography) of his fellow diocesan clergy? Fr. John Nesbella having his faculties suspended by Bishop Joseph Adamec for exposing homosexual corruption in Pennsylvania’s Altoona/Johnstown Diocese? Father Dowgiert fired from All Saints Church in Miami? Molesters of young boys getting free passes, while Traditionalists are treated with an effeminate vindictiveness? In the long run, the claim that 70% of the U.S. Bishops are homosexuals would explain a lot of things, wouldn’t it? The hijacking and transformation of the Catholic priesthood into a lucrative “gay, white-collar (literally!) profession” could not occur without some degree of compliance from the bigwigs.

Villanova Memorial To Abortion Victims Stalled

According to the Philadelphia Daily News (Apr. 12, 2006), “a highly controversial plan for a memorial on the Villanova campus to the ‘victims of abortion’ is in limbo,” after the university's board of trustees took a pass at approving the controversial memorial during its regular April meeting. Villanovans for Life, which is spearheading the monument effort, says the statue "will memorialize those who have died as a result of legalized abortion and all those who suffer physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually due to abortion.”

The memorial statue, which measures 3 feet high, more than 3 feet wide and nearly 2 feet deep, portrays the Virgin Mary kneeling and cradling the Infant Jesus. Created by Canadian sculptor Timothy P. Schmaltz, who has produced two other copies of the work for churches, the piece is meant to convey the image of maternal love as symbolized by Mary and Jesus and is not advertised as an anti-abortion monument. But Senior Lauren Homans, 22, monument coordinator for Villanovans for Life, hopes that the sculpture at Villanova will be a "daily reminder" of the unborn and those who suffer from the effects of an abortion.

A January fund-raising drive, aimed at raising $20,000 for the memorial effort, ended when Massachusetts alum Joseph McCullen, class of '59, saw an article in The Villanovan and offered to fund the effort. His donation covers the sculpture, base, shipping and installation.

Some students oppose the effort. One female student, quoted in the Philadelphia Daily News, who has had an abortion, was infuriated by  the proposed memorial. "They're making an assumption on how someone who has had an abortion feels about it," said the student, who requested that her name be withheld. Other students, while claiming to be “pro-life,” oppose the statue of Mary and Jesus because it could alienate non-Catholics. “Pro-life” Freshman Peggy Costello, 19, said that "putting up a statue like that completely counters the diversity we're trying to advocate or uphold.” But Villanova University spokeswoman Barbara K. Clement said that while Villanova does seek racial and economic diversity, it is a Roman Catholic, Augustinian university. "The statue would be within the precepts of faith," she said.

An April 11^th statement by university officials made no specific reference to the victims of abortion memorial. It simply read: “One of the issues introduced for discussion was the overall concept of memorials on the university's 222-acre campus. No decisions were made about any specific memorial or the broader issue of university memorials on campus.”

Victory For Free Speech In Canada

According to Life Site News (Apr. 13, 2006), one of the most important court decisions against religious freedom in Canada has been reversed when the highest court in the province of Saskatchewan  reversed a 2002 decision by the Court of Queen's Bench which ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred.

The original 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the paper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality. The human rights board of inquiry held that Mr. Owens had violated a section of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code which prohibits the publication or display of a sign or statement which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, or which ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of persons on the basis of various grounds, including “sexual orientation.”

The purpose of the advertisement placed by Mr. Owens was to indicate that the Bible rejects homosexual behavior. It made references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

In a 37-page decision by the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, released on April 13, 2006, the Court concluded that, although his advertisement was “jarring and offensive to many,” Mr. Owens had not acted contrary to the statutes of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

Since the previous court ruling had indicated that the Bible verses themselves expose "homosexuals to hatred," Christian legal experts were concerned that the Bible itself may be banned due to the passage of  hate propaganda legislation in Canada.

Comment: There are two interesting sections to be found in the Court of Appeals’ decision in favor of Hugh Owens:

- “the  question of how a particular individual or particular individuals understand a  message cannot determine whether it should be found to involve hate, belittlement, ridicule or is an affront to dignity. Injecting that sort of subjectivity into the analysis would make the reach of the section entirely unpredictable and, as a result, would create an unacceptable chilling effect on free speech.”

-  “in the present circumstances, it is necessary to recognize that many people do make such a distinction and believe on moral or religious ground that they can disapprove of the same-sex sexual practices without disapproving of gays and lesbians themselves. This fact is at least part of the overall context in which Mr. Owens’ advertisement must be considered.”

Too often today, the phrase “hate-crime” is used in place of the more accurate “thought-crime.” Our society has subdivided “hate” as though it were a tangible entity, instead of a sin, and the bizarre result is that some “hate” is worse than other “hate.”

It is odd, in this secularist walking-on-eggshells climate, with its attendant pandering to every fringe-group imaginable, to find a Court of Appeals admitting that (1) one can misread, either deliberately or through ignorance, the intentions of another, and (2) the distinction between sinful actions and sinners is a viable one.

In the long run, this vindication of Mr. Owens is simply a crisis postponed. There are groups out there that will not rest until the Scriptures are banned or, at least, relegated to virtual obscurity in the public sector. One setback will not deter them. Still, this news from Canada is as welcome as it is unexpected.

Ancient Roman Villa Found

Archaeologists have discovered a 2nd-century seaside villa where two important senators of ancient Rome are believed to have passed their summers, reports the Italian news agency ANSA (Apr. 14, 2006). The remains of the luxury residence turned up recently in Torvaianica, a coastal resort south of Rome, when the local council started digging trenches for a new sewerage system.

Historians knew from written sources that the villa of Titus Flavius Claudanius and Titus Flavius Sallustius was somewhere in the area, but the precise location had long been forgotten. The two senators belonged to an imperial dynasty and, as befitted their rank, the villa was constructed on a grand scale. It covers about a hectare (approximately 2.5 acres) and includes a large area given over to relaxation, including a gymnasium, hot and cold baths and various swimming pools .

"We're uncovering a vast complex, in which we've found all sorts of vessels and ceramics which have been taken away to be catalogued," said head archaeologist Filippo Avilia .

Experts noted that the find was important enough to become a tourist attraction for the area, which is already steeped in myth and legend. According to the Latin poet, Virgil, Trojan hero Aeneas landed just down the road at the ancient settlement of Lavinium after fleeing his city, which had been sacked by the Greeks. His descendants are said to have founded the city of Rome and an ancient monument to the hero can still be seen near Lavinio, the modern town on the site of Lavinium.