Hey, this isn’t fair. The Pope insulted Jews and nobody is writing outraged editorials in the New York Times about it.
HAVING just stirred up a global storm by quoting from a text fiercely critical of Islam, it might have been expected that Pope Benedict would avoid anything alluding to another religion that could be open to misinterpretation.
Yet minutes after saying he was “deeply sorry” about the reaction to his earlier remarks, he cited a passage from the New Testament highlighting the gulf between Christian and Jewish attitudes to Jesus’ crucifixion.
The pontiff appeared to risk causing fresh controversy during his speech on Sunday when he cited a passage from St Paul that risked being interpreted as hostile — not by Muslims, but by Jews. It described the crucifixion of Jesus as a “scandal for the Jews”.
Where are the cries of outrage? Where are the calls of death to the Pope? Why aren’t the Jews burning down churches and murdering Christians?
He said he wanted to comment on two recent Roman Catholic festivals relating to the crucifixion. What, the Pope asked, was the point of exalting the cross, a tool of execution?
In reply to his rhetorical question, he quoted a verse from St Paul, the New Testament author most often accused of anti-Semitism. In the Italian translation, used by the Pope, it runs as follows: “We preach the crucified Christ — a scandal for the Jews, a folly for the pagans.”
See? How insulting can he get? He called the crucifixion a scandal for the Jews! Everyone knows the Romans crucified Christ; crucifixion was never a method of Jewish execution.
Wait, wait: Here’s the Jewish outrage. It’s buried at the very end of the article. Hold on to your hats, it’s really vicious.
Jewish representatives expressed surprise at the latest incursion into sensitive territory. One said: “It does seem strange to come up with that particular quote at this particular time.”
No, really, it gets worse!
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, member of the Council of Christians and Jews, which was set up to oppose prejudice, said: “He’s really talking about veneration, not about the Jews. We can’t alter the sayings of the past. But we can be careful about how we use them, especially in view of the religious offence that can be taken, even if never intended.”
Take that, Pope! Betcha you’ll never insult Jews ever again.
But wait! The Australian newspaper cut the Guardian’s original last paragraphs, which are even more strident!
“We can’t alter the sayings of the past. But we can be careful about how we use them, especially in view of the religious offence that can be taken, even if never intended. The Pope has every right to quote his own holy texts, but it may be unwise in the current climate to choose those which relate to other faiths.
“However, it is especially important that anyone who does protest does so verbally, not physically, otherwise they put themselves even more at fault.”
There. You see what happens when you mess with the Jews? We anxiously await your many apologies, Pope.
I intend to write a simply vicious letter to the editor.
I dunno….
Maybe I’ll hop on the next plane out of here and go to Italy, and, wait, I can’t really say that in public, I’m not a Muslim.
I won’t even write a letter. Isn’t there a halachic obligation to give others the benefit of the doubt, and to interpret their words in the best way possible?
It’s not offensive unless a minority, particularly a Muslim objects to it.
Y’know something, the timing suggests to me that Benedict made these comments intentionally, to make just the point you have, Meryl. The contrast between the response of Jews vs. Muslims is immense, and any thinking person can see it for themselves.
I never knew why the Pope care for the fact who killed one Jew called Jesus? I didn’t notice once that the Pope asked himself who killed 6 million Jews and why.