Oh no, not again
To quote Abraham Foxman back to himself . . .
"Why do this when it will be painful to us?"
Why, Abraham, why? I thought all of this was over, that I could wake up in the morning and not see Foxman's name in the news.
So we have the usual unproven and undemonstrated overstatements ("Sister Emmerich's visions, as recounted in writings attributed to her, have 'fomented hatred and anti-Semitism'"), the perpetuation of Twilight-Zonesque conspiracy theories ("She speculated that because of the Pope's failing health, Sister Emmerich's beatification is being 'driven in a power vacuum by certain right-wing groups'"), and puzzling statements which betray a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic thought ("If someone [like this] merits sainthood, it is a damaging signal and a setback for Catholic-Jewish relations") (Do we now determine who is and who isn't in heaven by polling the ADL membership roster?).
Here was the really confusing part. Tell me how this summary:
"The Catholic News Service reported that Peter Gumpel, a Jesuit in Rome who has championed her cause, said that in making the decision to beatify her, the Vatican ignored her writings."
Can be derived from this data:
"'She is being judged not on the basis of what she has written but, as always, on the basis of her virtues,' Gumpel was quoted as saying."
Because the fundamental criteria for sainthood is personal holiness, not literary ability, means that the Vatican 'ignored her writings'?
I say again, "Why do this when it will be painful to us?"
# posted by Jamie : 5:36 PM
|
|
