Posted on 10/07/2008 7:13:22 AM PDT by Publius804
And what you said is ridiculous. They weren't "sent back to be killed." They were illegal immigrants without visas, and every last one of them was granted diplomatic asylum in friendly, free nations -- Britain, France, etc.
OMG! You probably think it was OK for FDR NOT to give them asylum here where the ship came to.......wow....which one of us has problems.
Lots of Jews were granted asylum. The ones on the St. Louis weren't -- but they weren't exactly facing death either. The US had zero reason to believe in 1939 that ANY Jews on board were in danger.
Wow! Lots of typos...sorry about that. I was typing as fast as I could at work, just before a meeting.
It's one thing to remember, another thing to constantly complain about something like it was last week. No one, ESPECIALLY in Germany, needs to be reminded of the evil men who perpetrated World War 2, especially when we realize the much more univeral body of people attacked specifically by Nazidom... I sense this is just another publicity stunt. Is there really any point in complaining about a Pope who didn't "say enough", when in reality, neither did any other major political figure during WW2 about the "Jewish plight" until it was already way too late to matter. And where were the Jews "up in arms" over the Polish Catholics being slaughtered? Or the Russian Ukranians? Or the Armenians after the first World War? Etc...
What is the point of this???
Regards
Tell it Jews-In-Name-Only in Israel. If anyone needs to hear this it’s them.
The rabbi does seem a little rude given the good faith with which he had been invited to participate in the Synod. He could have made a rather more objective statement along the following lines:
Thanking Pope Pius XII for his work challenging the Nazis on “Mit Brennender Sorge”, and for the quiet work in hiding and protecting some Jews in WWII, but that one can regret that he did not speak out publicly more forcefully. Instead, he just repeats the one-sided slanted anti-Pius, anti-Catholic talking points abroad.
This rabbi is an idiot.
The Mosaic requirement for restitution was actually based on a brilliant insight into human nature (But, considering the source, what else would one expect).
Restitution directly to the injured removes a reason for feuds. It also eliminates the overhead inherent in third party intervention in the process of making whole again the injured by the sinner who injured the victim.
There is no mention that I can recall of what we now call personal injury lawyers in the Old Testament. I also can’t seem to mention any favorable mention of such people in the New Testament.
Might I ask why you think restitution is attempting to fight evil with evil?
I was of the opinion that restitution removed the profit motive to the criminal who otherwise would profit from his crime by not having to pay restitution.
You wrote:
“The US had zero reason to believe in 1939 that ANY Jews on board were in danger.”
Kristallnacht ring a bell? Yes, less than 100 Jews were killed, but everyone knew it hah happened - IN 1938!!!!
Purportedly Italy saw around a quarter of its Jewish population killed during the Holocaust.
An eye for an eye is revenge, not restitution. This is precisely how blood feuds start and drag on for generations in some societies. The Middle East is a perfect example of a place where blood feuds are fueled by such "restitutions" on both sides.
“From a Catholic viewpoint, the issue isn’t one involving transference of venue from the public sphere to the confessional. One is expected, if anything, to manifest his forgiveness - or his apology - to the person(s) affected by it. The private confession is for the sin involved, which is against God, so one is seeking His forgiveness there.”
Under Mosaic Law, before one can pray for forgiveness by God and “be inscribed in the Book Of Life for the coming year” one must first have performed the three requirements (restitution, public apology, apology must be sincere.
I think one of the differences between Catholic and Jewish positions is that the Jew must first make the victim whole, then ask for God’s forgiveness. Jews believe G*d doesn’t want to be asked for forgiveness by a man until after that man has first obeyed G*d’s command to make whole again the victim.
“Preferably, I should do this even before I have confessed the sin, but it is understood that, to the extent that it is possible, I need to do this at least after absolution has been given.”
As I am able to understand Jewish law (minimally, I admit), as contrasted with Catholic (Canon Law) law (even less, alas), the Jew must first make things whole on earth before asking for Divine forgiveness.
“So, in this respect, I think trying to cast this issue of forgiveness and apology as soely within the confines of sacramental absolution is incorrect.”
My apology if I did not clearly state my premise. For the Jew, seeking forgiveness is a simple process: first, make the victim whole, and only then can you ask for G*d’s forgiveness.
As I understand Canon Law, the sinning Catholic is forgiven regardless of the timing of the sinner’s effort to make restitution to the victim or even the attempt (at any time) on the part of said sinner to make restitution.
Where the Jew is required to return the loot (restitution) the Catholic is expected to. Where the Jew must make the three acts of restitution on his own, and only then is allowed to ask for G*d’s forgiveness, the Catholic comes to the Church for forgiveness and penance.
Odd, isn’t it, that all too many American Jews, heirs to a several thousand year long heritage of individual responsibility for one’s own sins (beginning with the individual’s Bar Mitzvah) seem all too often to be all too willing to accept modern day socialism.
“God will not forgive such sins if no effort is made to acknowledge the wrongdoing in confession and to the person(s) affected.”
May I ask for specific Biblical and/or Canon Law citations? I suspect they are there, but I have not found them, and your expertise may (hopefully) locate such.
It's getting late, so I'm heading for bed. I can get you some citations some time tomorrow.
Sorry. Everyone knew in 1939 that Jews were in danger in Germany. The Jews on the St. Louis didn't go back to Germany. They went to Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, where Jews were not in any kind of obvious danger. In 1939, France had the largest Army in Europe. It wasn't obvious to anybody in 1939 that France would be conquered by Germany in a month, nor that Germany would seek to exterminate the Jews when in 1939 it was simply trying to expel them.
The Nazis in the 1930s had the goal of expelling every last Jew from Germany. They worked to do so by making life very difficult for Jews (Kristalnacht being an example of this) and 90% of German Jews -- every last German Jew who wanted to leave (a few, mainly the elderly, did not) -- did leave.
In January 1942, the Nazis stopped trying to expel the Jews from their territory and embarked on a radically new approach -- extermination. That happened 3 years AFTER the St. Louis incident.
You wrote:
“Sorry. Everyone knew in 1939 that Jews were in danger in Germany. The Jews on the St. Louis didn’t go back to Germany.”
Sorry, but the Jews on the St. Louis were FROM GERMANY and if not for the active intervention of the Brits, French, et al. Germany is exactly where they would have ended up. Did that not occur to you? Perhaps you didn’t know that people are deported to their nation of origin or that ships are ultimately sent back to their nations of origin? The St. Louis was a German ship, registered in Hamburg, Germany. Did you know that?
“In 1939, France had the largest Army in Europe.”
Irrelevant.
“It wasn’t obvious to anybody in 1939 that France would be conquered by Germany in a month, nor that Germany would seek to exterminate the Jews when in 1939 it was simply trying to expel them.”
Again, irrelevant. Kristallnacht had already happened. It already was well known that Jews suffered horribly in Germany and that Jews could lose their lives in Germany for no other reason than that they were Jewish.
“In January 1942, the Nazis stopped trying to expel the Jews from their territory and embarked on a radically new approach — extermination. That happened 3 years AFTER the St. Louis incident.”
And Kristallnacht happened one year BEFORE the St. Louis incident. Keep up.
But what's your point? There was never any realistic threat of the St. Louis passengers being sent back to Germany. And it's not like the US didn't accept a large number of Jewish refugees in the 1930s. The US did accept a large number of Jews, even though jobs were scarce in the Great Depression and immigration was incredibly unpopular.
. Kristallnacht had already happened.
Which indicated beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was unsafe for Jews to stay in Germany. Every German Jew who had any desire to leave Germany was able to get out, either to Britain, America, or, for the less lucky, France, Poland, Denmark and the low countries. 60 years later we know that Belgium, Poland and France weren't safe, but nobody knew that in 1939.
“In 1939, France had the largest Army in Europe.” Irrelevant.
No, not irrelevant. From the perspective of any observer in 1939, French Jews were safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.