Courtesy of Fr. James Martin, I came across Sarah Silverman’s anti-Catholic rant in which she tells the pope to end world hunger by selling the Vatican – and promising him that, among other things, the involvement with the Holocaust would be forgotten. Regular readers will be aware that I’m not exactly Bill Donohue’s biggest fan, but it is at times like this that I want to be become the next Bill Donohue. For the point is basically correct – it is perfectly acceptable to attack Catholicism in a way that is not the case with other religions.
The point of this post, though, is not to point out how dumb Silverman’s argument is – as Fr. Martin points out, the pope cannot sell the Vatican, as it belongs to the Church, not to him. And that the Catholic Church is the single biggest provider of health care and social services in the world. No, the point of this post is to point out the hypocrisy of Silverman’s smugness. Silverman is Jewish. Perhaps she needs to look a little closer here. Perhaps she needs to ask why a group of her co-religionists feel that they have a unique right to their own secular state, and to deny human rights to (and commit war crimes against) the non-Jewish inhabitants of that territory. Look to your own backyard first, Sarah, before pointing out the moral flaws of the Catholic Church.
NCR had an interesting interview with an African Bishop who addressed Silverman’s comment. Here’s the link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/african-bishop-islam-oil-and-why-selling-vatican-stupid-idea. Here’s what the Bishop said:
“First, it would depend who is telling me that. If that person is from Europe or America, I can suggest a few other things that they could sell to help the poor. I would tell them to start there first, before coming to the Vatican. But if any person from our own poor countries were to say such a thing, and I hardly see that happening … the few poor people who come here have never said, ‘Oh, why don’t they sell this and give us money for food?’ They always say, ‘What a beautiful place.’ They admire it. Maybe it’s because man does not live by bread alone. It helps them to see how great our God is, and they’re not expecting the Vatican to sell it off. Anyway, to whom? Who would buy it, and what would it cost? The joke [from the comedian] isn’t only offensive and in bad taste, it’s stupid.
“What they should be asking is, what is the Vatican doing about poverty in the world? That’s the question to be asked. If you’ve ever come up to see the pope’s apartment, it is very straight-forward and simple. This isn’t just his house, it’s not just his mansion. As you know, the whole building has all the offices, the Secretariat of State, the Vatican Museums which occupies a whole lot of space, all that. It’s like your White House isn’t just the bedroom of Obama. Maybe if there were no Vatican, the pope would still need to build a house for himself and his offices. It would not be built like this, because I don’t know that modern architects have the same kind of spirit as those who designed this, but that’s another question.
“The answer I would give is that poverty in the world has to be dealt with by justice. All these big structures, all those unjust economic structures in the world, those are the things to move so that the poor can survive. I think we know that sadness and the tragedy of it, and we know what to do. It can be done, and it can be done without reducing everybody to the same lowest common denominator of misery. What we don’t have is the political, and I would say spiritual, will to do it. Will it come? I don’t know.”
I particularly enjoyed his first comment. I wonder how many millions Sarah Silverman has? I wonder how big her house is? I wonder how new and shiny her car is?
I can’t tell you how much I dislike this dullard. She isn’t even funny!
About as worthy of a response as the theological and sociological insights of Paris Hilton.
Silverman comes from a generation of comedians who doesn’t see a difference between insults and jokes. So far as I can figure George Carlin is their primogenitor, so anti-catholicism is probably one of the foundations of the craft.
At least Carlin had the insight to be self-deprecating as well. Silverman has always seemed dangerously full of herself to me.
It is worth noting, however, that just as it is unfair to impugn all Catholics for the actions of a few, so it it also unfair to paint the Jewish people with such a broad stroke as the second paragraph of this post implies.
Jon allen demolished this myth a few years ago:
“In the public’s imagination, the Vatican is awash in priceless art, hidden Nazi gold, plundered treasures from around the world, and vast assets tucked away from prying eyes in the Vatican Bank. Reality is far more prosaic. To put it bluntly, the Vatican is not rich. It has an annual operating budget of $260 million, which would not place it on any Top 500 list of major social institutions. To draw a comparison in the non-profit sector, Harvard University has an annual operating budget of a little over $1.3 billion, which means it could run the equivalent of five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over. The Holy See’s budget would qualify it as a mid-sized American Catholic college. It’s bigger than Loyola-Marymount in Los Angeles (annual budget of $150 million) or Saint Louis University ($174 million), but substantially less than the University of Notre Dame ($500 million).
“The total patrimony of the Holy See, meaning its property holdings (including some 30 buildings and 1,700 apartments in Rome), its investments, its stock portfolios and capital funds, and whatever it has storied up in a piggy bank for a rainy day, comes to roughly $770 million. This is substantial, but once again one has to apply a sense of scale. What the Holy See calls “patrimony” is roughly what American universities mean by an “endowment” – in other words, funds and other assets designed to support the institution if operating funds fall short. The University of Notre Dame has an endowment of $3.5 billion, meaning a total 4.5 times as great as the Vatican’s.
“But what of the some 18,000 artistic treasures in the Holy See, such as the Pietà, that don’t show up on these ledgers? From the Holy See’s point of view, these artworks are part of the artistic heritage of the world, and may never be sold or borrowed against. Michelangeo’s famous Pieta statue, the Sistine Chapel, or Raphael’s famous frescoes in the Apostolic Palace are thus listed at a value of 1 Euro each. In fact, those treasures amount to a net drain on the Holy See’s budget, because millions of Euros have to be allocated every year for maintenance and restoration.”
http://www.tnerb.org/archives/000208.html
Mickey,
MM was not painting a broad stroke about the Jewish people; all that was asked was about a group who wants to keep Israel racially pure (which is not all in Israel, but it is effect of the policies of the current government in Israel).
a group who wants to keep Israel racially pure
No one wants to keep Israel “racially pure,” and the charge – with all its historic connotations – is a form of rhetorical arson.
Warning, this video is full of blasphemy and cursing.
This is to show it is not all of Israel, or all within Israel; here you will find Orthodox Jews being attacked by the Zionists.
But the settlers are like this:
Those videos are only meant to show that there is indeed a group in Israel which is like this; it is not to say all in Israel are, indeed, there is a great divide in Israel on this matter. Many are wanting to come to peace with the Palestinians and to give them full, equal status in Israel; but the reality of racial politics in Israel has to be acknowledged and dealt with (from all sides).
This is a good talk from a Jewish American.
The point has been made time and again that not all Muslims are answerable for the crimes committed by their co-religionists. Why is that standard different for Sarah Silverman? I suppose I could find some videos of Swedish skinheads in a berserker rage, but I wouldn’t think of demanding that that a fellow named Karlson answer for them.
People want elegant churches. If you look at any small town, you’ll see that it began with a few residences, a store, and a church. Every generation builds onto their church, consciously putting the church ahead of themselves. It’s a natural aspect of worship. The poor we will always have with us; that doesn’t change the fact that honoring Jesus’ holy body is a worthy act. It makes sense that we would see the same pattern on a world scale.
And I usually find Sarah Silverman to be funny; and I have no problem with Israel’s right to exist, or with a lot of their policies.
I think Vox Nova has wandered into very dangerous territory by focusing on Sarah Silverman’s Jewishness and and by airing criticisms of Israel or some of those in Israel as a response to Silverman’s video about selling the Vatican to end world hunger. Her own religion has little or nothing to do with what she was saying. Were Siverman a Hindu, or a Muslim, or even a Catholic, the video would have been just as offensive.
The message here appears to be, “If Jews criticize Catholics, Catholics will criticize Jews.” It borders on anti-Semitism, in my opinion. Father Martin didn’t seem to find it necessary in his piece to retaliate against the Jews for Silverman’s remarks, which it seems to me were not seriously meant, although they did seem to provoke real anti-Catholic sentiment in some of the comments I read accompanying the video on Youtube.
Several followup comments have not been approved yet, and it’s not my place to approve or delete them, but I tend to agree with them. I have no problem with exposing and attacking extremists within Judaism (just as I have no problem doing the same for Christian and Islamic extremists), but implying that Sarah Silverman is responsible for the actions of her “co-religionists” is no more legitimate than saying that your run-of-the-mill Catholic is responsible for the actions of a crazy excommunicated Bishop who denies the Holocaust. I’m sure that this wasn’t MM’s intent, but I must say that it’s not a stretch to see how some readers might take it the wrong way. And it is, as a commenter writes, very dangerous ground. We can and should criticize her “message” on its merits (or lack thereof) without engaging in easily-misinterpreted generalizations.
Mickey and others (I have not deleted them either, and wait for their approval): I think the point being made by MM is exactly your point. “If Catholics should demand X just because they are Catholics, than Jews must demand Y because they are Jews, and Hindus should demand Z from other Hindus because they are Hindus.” It is not meant as a criticism of a race as much as it is a ridicule of Sarah’s own position by a reductio ad absurdum.
On the other hand, we must also acknowledge, as the Vatican does, that the situation in Israel is not ideal, and there needs to be a solution which allows Israel to exist, but also one which allows the others the right to exist without undue restrictions, either. When I am told that there is no racial politics going on, I will respond, because that is a major factor (from many sides, not just Jews in Israel). Either a two-state solution, or a transformation of Israel (similar to what was done in South Africa) is needed. It is for this reason why I also tried to show how it is not a “Jew vs non Jew” situation by bringing out many Jews who also agree that something needs to be done.
Assuming that Minion bases his look-at-Israel shtick on Silverman’s ethnicity, one can only be perturbed. Why would a Jew have to justify Israel ? It’s not a choice to be Jewish. Besides, she’s not religious. Her sister is the rabbi in the family.
“Look to your own backyard first, Sarah, before pointing out the moral flaws of the Catholic Church.”
?? L’homme (la femme) se fait. What one is born into, country, religion etc. is by no means binding, nor is there such a thing as Sippenhaftung (liability of the entire family/clan). By this rationale, no one could ever decry any injustice happening outside her “perimeter.” This is very uncharacteristic of Minion. Determinism a la Calvinism ?
I guess when it hits home, standards go out the window. I find her boring, for the record.
Not to mention that Christendom did indeed pave the road for the Shoah.
Not that long ago, Pius IX had Edgardo Mortara abducted. A mild deed compared to shameful, murderous acts by countless popes and “Christian” rulers. It took the great human being Giuseppe Roncalli and his “I am Joseph, your brother.” (not to mention saving Jews from the Nazis) to bring about change. Of course, there are still those among you who mourn having “perfidious Jews” stricken from liturgy. Curiously, they are most likely to respond in Minion’s fashion.
I think the point being made by MM is exactly your point.
Oh, please. MM wasn’t employing a reductio in order to merely ridicule Silverman’s moronic video, and his point wasn’t that there are certain Jews who believe reprehensible things about Arabs. In context, MM’s quite serious message – so serious that it could compel him to publicly empathize with Bill Donohue – was that a Jew like Silverman should shut the hell up because Israel is a terrorist state, and as a Jew she’s answerable for that.
I’ve been busy today, and am only attending to comments now. Look, I am deliberately trying to stir things up here. Because there are serious issues that need to be raised, and a little hyperbola is a good way of doing it.
Unlike the Israeli state itself, I do not impute collective responsibilty on a group of people. In fact, I’ve gone out of my way in the past to distinguish he Jewish religion from the secular state of Israel. In fact, many orthodox Jews were absolutely horrified by the creation of the state of Israel for they well understood that a secular nation could not do the will of God. My line is pretty simple – the creation of the Israeli state was a grave injustice, motivated by Holocaust guilt, and it has been the single greatest source of instability and destruction in the middle east for half a century. That said, we must be prudent and accept the state’s de facto existence – for the same reason that it would not make sense for all white, black, and Asian Americans to pack up and return to their continent of origin. In all of this, I pretty much follow the Vatican – I would have opposed the founding of Israel, but now desire a two-state solution, with full recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people.
But because of the alliance of convenience between the Jewish groups and the far-right evangelicals, Israel’s actions and motivations are beyond reproach in American political discourse. Simply calling a spade and spade and accusing them of war crimes and terrorist tactics means one is an anti-semite. Sorry, I’m not playing that game.
Back to the main point – David suggests that the tone of the post is that “If Jews criticize Catholics, Catholics will criticize Jews”. I think there’s something to that, but the point is more subtle. Let’s say that a prominent Muslim had made these comments about the Vatican. Would not many (especially on the right) have suggested that this person look first at the more serious problems in the Islamic community? It would be a matter of consistency and hypocrisy – not holding that person responsible for all the evils perpetuated by Muslims.
Not that I actually think tit-for-tat is that healthy in the larger scheme of things. Years back, I thought it was a problem that Christians are harassed in Islamic countries, while a large mosque overlooks the Vatican. I’ve since realized that this is not the way to look at it – that’s not the Christian frame of reference.
But that doesn’t mean we should simply stay quiet about basic differences. It does not mean we should say nothing while commentators consistently point out specks the in eyes of the Catholic Church while ignoring planks in the eyes of other world religions – does it? Is it not correct to point out the flawed Islam that gives us Al Qaeda, the flawed Judaism that gives us the settler movement, the flawed Buddhism that bolsters Sinhalese nationalism, the flawed Protestantism that supports American military adventures? And why should Judaism be treated more gingerly than the others?
… why should Judaism be treated more gingerly than the others?
For at least three reasons. First, because in the broad sweep of history, the Holocaust happened only the day before yesterday. It may be old news to you (and no news to figures like Williamson and Ahmadinejad), but the Shoah is still fresh in the memory of the Jewish people.
Second, because Jews, unlike Buddhists or Protestants, have been a scapegoat for 2,000 years, and incendiary charges like those you routinely make only encourage something much darker than perhaps you intend. In fact, criticism of Israel – even in a venue like this – always takes on a curious intensity that is missing in discussions of other contemporary “occupations,” which in any case are rarely mentioned, much less condemned with any real vigor.
Third, because anti-Semitism in the Arab world is real, vicious, and largely unmoored from the Palestinian situation. The grotesque anti-Semitism – including blood libels and charges of bestiality – that issues from Arab and Muslim capitals is intended to distract the Arab and Muslim masses from the corruption and incompetence of their rulers. To credit Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism as some kind of natural reaction to Israel is simply ignorant or its origin. To perpetuate it with wild charges and exaggerated claims is dangerous.
I don’t buy that argument, Mark. I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the “uniqueness” of the Shoah, and the political exploitation of this horrendous event. In the 20th century alone, was it worse than the Armenian massacre, Stalin, the Khmer Rouge or the Rwandan genocide? I think not. And if you want to talk about the stain on the conscience of Europe, then fine, I’m fully on board with John Paul’s purification of memory. But I can easily think of savagery that matches the Nazis – think of the carnage, often forgotten today, of the religious wars preceding the Treaty of Westphalia (and both sides are equally guilty).
No, Mark, you argument is quite a dangerous one. If we hold criticism of Judaism (or at least actions in its name) to a different standard, then that is simply a license to continue the American lopsided policy toward Israel. I cannot buy the argument that you excuse war crimes because the recent ancestors of the perpetrators of war crimes faced genocide.
Two more points:
The “curious intensity” that Mark sees in opposition to Israel is solely related to its stuanch lop-sided support from the US. I think if the US adopted a similar policy toward the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, you would see the same reaction.
“To credit Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism as some kind of natural reaction to Israel is simply ignorant or its origin.” I’ve traveled quite a lot around the middle east. I know many people from the region. Israel is simply the defining issue. This is not to excuse their actions, or to defend their governments, but it is simply a fact.
“Sarah, before pointing out the moral flaws of the Catholic Church.”
Do you think that the opulence of the Vatican is a moral flaw?
the Shoah is still fresh in the memory of the Jewish people.
What the Palestinian Arabs call the “catastrophe” of 1948 is FRESHER in their memory than the Shoah is in the memories of most Jews I know.
Look, for all the exculpation of the “nice” and “humane” elements of the Israeli population who wish to see a negotiated peace settlement that includes the creation of a Palestinian state, that element of the population seems to have little or no influence with their politicians. The influential element of the Israeli population are the strident Zionists and the “settlers,” who believe in “Eretz Israel,” and who regularly refer to the Palestinians as “dogs.”
I suspect that these people would not be so influential and important in Israeli politics if they weren’t constantly receiving infusions of cash and encouragement from organizations in the U.S. like AIPAC. In Europe such an organization, whose proclaimed purpose, to influence the foreign policy of their country of origin, in favour of a foreign power, would not be tolerated. And all the while, as you Americans ARE tolerating it, the Israelis are heavily involved in espionage against their ostensible “ally.” (Just this morning ANOTHER nuclear scientist corrupted by Mossad was arrested in Washington. Do you believe that a so-called “ally”–and one that is costing the United States so much in terms of world approval–should be STEALING the defense secrets of its patron state?)
MM, I would have to know a lot more about you to respond to these really amazing and alarming comments. I suspect the key to understanding your perspective on this is embedded somewhere in your biography, which is of course beyond the scope of this discussion.
Let’s say that a prominent Muslim had made these comments about the Vatican. Would not many (especially on the right) have suggested that this person look first at the more serious problems in the Islamic community?
If the prominent Muslim were truly representing Islam and making serious criticism of the Vatican, then this might make some sense. But if it had been a Muslim comedian known for outrageousness proposing that the Vatican be sold to end world hunger, then that would be another matter entirely.
Oh the places you are willing to go MM.
Mark is rather charitable letting you simmer in your little stew – but hey nobody is perfect. You wanted to get a little discussion going – Mission accomplished – it is probably good in the end to air this built up of prejudices and ill feelings toward the Jewish state.
Frankly you should not worry to much- plenty of the most capable and charismatic citizens of Israel are again on the move away from this little sliver of homeland.
I by the way find that Sarah Silverman has all the right in the world to say whatever she pleases to say – she is a comedian – a modern day court jester in other words- historically we pay these people to say uncomfortable things. It purges the ‘built up’ out of our systems – in my view this post is a point in case.
Lots of honest deep seated prejudices aired triggered by the deliberate over the top remarks of Ms. Silverman.
Perhaps you raise some valid points Digbydolben – on the other hand why should anybody be really surprised that Nations do not have ‘Friends’ but rather ‘Interests’. I fully expect that Nations do what is in the best interest of their people – sure Israeli politicians and leaders pushes as hard as they can to have things go their way – I fully expect non less for example from my native Germany or any other ‘nice’ european nation.
the creation of the Israeli state was a grave injustice, motivated by Holocaust guilt,
The Zionist movement — to encourage the Jewish people to re-establish a homeland — was alive and well long before the Nazi seizure of power. And the parties guilty as to the Holocaust had little to say about world affairs in 1948.
But however we get there, we are at the point now where two states, each accepting each other and committed to live in peace, is the only possible solution.
There are troubling elements on the Israeli Right. But sadly on the Palestinian side, there is no counterpart to the Israeli Labor Party or other organs of the Left or Center in Israel. There really is no one to negotiate with.
I can only respond to the direction of this thread personally as an Armenian.
It’s part of the natural order of things that Christians protect the Jews, lead difficult lives, and then get slaughtered by Muslims. Any variation from that pattern is a historical abberation. (Armenians have proven to be very good at all three.) I am appalled that what my people have gone through would be used to diminish the tragedy of the Holocaust.
Kurt’s comment is right on. Speculation over whether it was a good idea to found the State of Israel is useless. Quite frankly, it seems somewhat disingenuous to suggest that after the Holocaust, the Jews should have been content to stay in Europe and trust the Europeans to protect them. But that’s not the point. The point is that Israel exists, and it’s not going anywhere (and yes, like any sovereign state, it has the right to defend itself). We can’t change the past; we can only move forward. Unlike the extremists in both the Israeli and the Palestinian camps, I don’t care who the land belonged to 50, or 100, or 2000 years ago; I care about not letting Israeli and Palestinian children grow up without the constant fear of being blown to pieces, whether by Israeli cruise missiles or Palestinian suicide bombers. The two-state solution is the ONLY solution, and both sides need to realize that they’ll end up having to give up something for the sake of peace.
Actually, historically, Christians didn’t protect Jews all that much. In Al-Andalus (Andalusia today), Jews fared considerably better under Muslim rule. One need only remind oneself of their fate in Spain thanks to the “Reconquista.” Even conversos were not left in peace. In general, Islam was superior to Christendom at that time, culturally and technologically.
The biggest enemy of Palestinians is not so much Israel but their own crooked leaders. Billions of EU aid vanished – into the pockets of said leaders. Ideally, there should be a third state, where the radicals on both sides can duke it out. Secular/liberal Muslims and Jews certainly wouldn’t “go at it” like this. Much like the US without the South/red state enclaves ;-) There wouldn’t be much of a military, people would have guaranteed health insurance, vacation…heck, we’d be living in Canada ;-)
Hatred of Jews doesn’t even require their presence. If Israel was the most gentle, just country on the face of the planet (and compared to most Muslim nations it doesn’t look so bad), the hatred would live on, although probably with less support. The main issue is the rotten state of Muslim nations, not the existence of Israel. It’s a convenient scapegoat for the crooked leaders of said nations, however.
What made the Shoah (Holocaust is a bad term since it means a burnt offering…a good thing in Hebrew Scriptures) so extraordinary is that it was perpetrated by a perfectly civilized nation and in so thorough, industrialized, book-kept a manner. If someone were persecuting “my people”, I wouldn’t want it to be Germans but rather Italians or Spaniards etc. And, to the West, it’s much “closer to home” than atrocities perpetrated half a world away.
“Holocaust denial” isn’t really about saying it didn’t happen (plus, most of those people would like to see that kind of genocide) but rather to stop Jews from being “special.”
I’ve never understood the whole “Christ killer” label/libel…nobody says “The Americans killed JFK”. Granted, some rather vicious passages in the “New Testament”certainly “motivate” such people. Then again, Yankee fans also say “We won the World Series”, yet none of them played in it.
why should anybody be really surprised that Nations do not have ‘Friends’ but rather ‘Interests’. I fully expect that Nations do what is in the best interest of their people
However, the only difference we have, Grega, is that I believe that it is NOT in the interests of the United States or even Western European states to keep on writing blank checks for the apartheid state of Israel.
I also agree that it pointless to go on debating the “justice” of the founding of the State of Israel. However, what is NOT pointless is a discussion of how Israel will accommodate the just demands of the Palestinians, in order that the Western states may go on supporting her without losing credibility as anti-imperialists. Believe me, it is not just Arabs who are affronted by this one-sided support of the Goliath-nation; I was constantly asked by non-Arab Muslims, all the time I lived in India and Sri Lanka, why America was so “unfair” to the Palestinian people. Third World peoples know full well that Israeli atrocities and expropriations are committed with the aid of American funds and materiel.