Conference taveng::bagels

    Cardinal Glemp said that the American Jews who "invaded" the convent
    presented a threat to the nuns' lives, and that the nuns were saved
    from death by the "heroic" Polish thugs.  I've met one of the protesters
    (Glen Richter), and the idea that he would murder nuns would be
    laughable if it weren't a revival of the blood libel.  Cardinal Glemp
    accuses Jews of anti-polonism (a new word?).  He raises the
    spectre of hordes of anti-polonist (?) Jews attacking innocent Polish
    nuns.  Glemp is clearly an anti-semite.  His claim that moving the
    convent would upset the Polish people only cast his anti-semitism
    upon all Poles.

My reaction to what has been going on is one of dismay, albeit, not
one of surprise.

Glemp seems to be hitting all of the right hot buttons: 
 
  - "My Dear esteemed Jews (he must've choked saying those words)

  - His comments about the supposed worldwide conspiracy of Jews
    controlling the mass media

  - His statements about the other Cardinals who signed the Agreement
    not knowing what they were doing, and how a new agreement to
    move the convent should be negotiated

Pope Paul (whatever number they're up to right now) is not exactly doing too
much to help ease frictions between Jews and Catholics. This past Summer
he explained how - with Christ's coming - Jews had a new Covenant
with G-d.  Sure J.P., if you say so it *must* be right, oh infallible
one.

He hasn't exactly tried to tell Glemp to keep his stupid mouth shut, either.

Even the Boston Globe has been doing articles about the Poles' anti-Semitism.
( For the Globe, that's something. Must be one of the newspapers we
Jews control.)
    
Now, before I get accused of criticizing someone's religion, please note
that I'm being critical of two people here: P.P. <# mumble> and Joeseph
Glemp.

On the other hand, Catholicism makes a whole lot of sense to me. :-)

  Alan
    

    re: 2
    
    
    	Isn't possible to make your statement without resorting to name
    	calling and insult ?
    
    David
    

    My friend's parents left Poland nearly 20 years ago BECAUSE of the
    anti-Semitism there then.  
    
    Her father, a Polish-born Jew fled the Nazis leaving an aged wife
    and a sister.  He spent the war years in Soviet Union and married
    there.  He returned to Poland after the war, though he could have
    become a Soviet citizen, in order to find his mother and sister.
    Only when he returned did he discover their sad fate, as with so
    many others.  
    
    THey remained there and they had several children.  But they did not
    want to raise them in an anti-Semitic environment and immigrated
    to the US with their three teenage children.
    
    He bears a deep bitterness toward the Poles.
    
    I just learned this story last night. . .

    Re .0:
    
    When I first read about the Convent at Auschwitz and the reaction
    of the Jews to its presence, I thought surely with what I perceived
    to be a new sensitivity among Catholic leaders towards the Jews
    somebody in Rome or wherever was going to realize that not addressing
    this situation properly would set back efforts to reconcile Jews
    and Catholics many years.
    
    Then I read just this weekend that Pope John Paul is apparently
    taking a hands off attitude towards the problem and leaving it
    to the Polish Catholics (lead by Glemp) to sort out. I also
    understood that several other Cardinals had met with Glemp (including
    Lustiger of France who you may know was born a Jew but raised by
    a Catholic family during WWII) to try to work out some kind of
    compromise but it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong)
    that Glemp balked at any attempts at compromise.
    
    It seems to me that it would be in the best interests of the Catholic
    church to be more sensitive to the Jewish protests about the Convent,
    especially considering that the majority of the people who died
    at Aushwitz were Jewish.
    
    Also, not to cloud the issue, but didn't it turn out that a Polish
    priest (Maxmillian Kolb?) who was martyred at Auschwitz and canonized
    by the Catholic church turn out to be a rabid Polish anti-semite before
    the war? I'm reaching way back in the memory bank.
    
    Just some opinions....
    
    Mark
    i

    Glemp and friends are of course engaging in the classical Anti-Semitism
    that permeates many Eastern European "nationalist" movements, such as
    Pamyat.  The "captive nations" movements in the US are part and parcel
    of this, and are historically anti-Semetic.  Of course, they deny it,
    but from their perspective Hitler was only trying to prevent the spread
    of the World Commie-Jew Conspiracy and just maybe went a little far!
    
    And the nuns?  It was reported that they established their convent in
    order to pray for the conversion of Jews, as well as "for the souls" of
    dead Poles!  In that sense, they went to Auschwitz in order to pray for
    the completion of its task, not to pray for it to never happen again.
    
    Kudos to Solidarity for standing four-square against Glemp on this one.

    Re: .3
    
    Is ridicule really necessary? I don't know - possibly as necessary
    as Glemp's "Dear Esteemed Jews" opening phrase.
    
    Happily, since I'm Jewish, I don't have to try and pretend to turn
    the other cheek.
    
    When I'm angry, I can dislike *both* the sinner and the sin.  
    
    BTW, David, who are you worried about offending here in Bagels?
    
      Alan  

    Interesting replies guys.  Re:.2, normally I would have thought
    it to be name-calling, etc.  But the church leadership in Poland
    started this all with some good old-fashioned anti-semitic
    name-calling.
    
    --David

    Re .6:
    
    This is slightly off the subject but the real irony here is, at
    least with respect to the Baltic States, that Hitler and Stalin
    secretly agreed to make Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania war prizes
    for the Russians as a reward for invading Poland from the East in
    1939. Then Hitler invaded those countries in 1941 and the Nazi's
    described the invasion of those countries as a "liberation" from
    Soviet domination!
    
    Somehow I think somebody in Eastern Europe missed the boat and locked
    on to the wrong conspirators - the real conspirators could be
    identified by either a hammer and sickle or a swastika, not by a
    Star of David.
    
    Mark

    What I find fascinating is that the Catholics regard Aushwitz as 
    a place of salvation, while the Jews regard it as an *anus mundi*.

re .9
    
    Mark, 
    
>    This is slightly off the subject but the real irony here is, at
    
    As long as I am not the first one to be off the subject, let me comment
    on the following:
    
>    Somehow I think somebody in Eastern Europe missed the boat and locked
>    on to the wrong conspirators - the real conspirators could be
>    identified by either a hammer and sickle or a swastika, not by a
>    Star of David.
    
    You are of course correct, however it is too easy for those who wish to 
    build a certain case to state that just as Jews were over-represented among
    East European musicians and mathematicians, they were also over-represented
    among communists and over-zelous fighters for Bolshevism and heroic 
    defenders of the Soviet Empire.
    
    Needless to state here, Jews are also over-represented among the victims of
    swastika and red star. My point is that alongside the millions of Jews who
    quietly lived in shtetls caring little about external events, there were
    numerous Jews who took active part in some of the most dramatic historic 
    events in the first half of 20th c., and, not un-characteristically, 
    excelled.
    
    Alex
    

    My opinion on this matter has changed with time.
    
    At first, I was a little embarrassed.  Having visited concentration
    camps, I felt I could excuse, and almost willingly accept, the
    establishment of a "place" in a camp that would be a symbol of
    peace and reconciliation, even though it was based on a religion
    other than Judaism.  I cried like a baby the first time I visited
    Dachau, and I still feel the pain when I think about it.  Having
    worked with charities often indirectly tied to churches, I felt it
    was a decent move to establish a sort of chapel there.  In Dachau,
    there were three chapels - one Jewish, one Christian, and another
    (my memory fails me now).  At the time, I was reading that the Carmelite
    nuns wanted to "pray" for all people's deliverance from the evil
    represented at Auschwitz.  And I was embarrassed because I thought
    my Jewish brothers and sisters were over-reacting to the situation.
    
    Then I found out what was *really* going on.
    
    I have not been able to travel extensively in Eastern Europe to have
    really understood the long standing anti-Semitism that has not
    receded there, like it has somewhat in Western Europe, but when I
    read the one line in Glemp's speech about the Jews controlling the media, 
    I was absolutely shocked, and it immediately became clear just how 
    insensitive the Cardinal was.  The rest of his speech was appalling,
    and what I read about the thugs that attacked the protesters that
    climbed the fence of the convent was outrageous.  I wonder what some
    of those peoples dads were doing in 1943.  
    
    I now think, at the very least as a conciliatory move, the convent
    should be moved as was first agreed upon.  Auschwitz is the synonym
    to evil, and I think that needs to be respected.  I think maybe I
    was a little insensitive to that, at first.  Unfortunately, no matter
    what is done, the anti-Semitic virus has been granted a vocal host,
    and Solidarity is our only hope to straighten out the Poles.
    
                                               .steve.

>    What I find fascinating is that the Catholics regard Aushwitz as 
>    a place of salvation, while the Jews regard it as an *anus mundi*.
 
    Two things here: I'd appreciate if you could replace "the Catholics" by
    "some Catholics", and "the Jews" by "some Jews", in the future. I
    thought it was obvious to you that strongly diverging opinions exist
    within the Catholic community, in this matter. Secondly, not even the
    nuns consider Auschwitz as a place of salvation, nor do many Jews that
    I know consider it as *anus mundi*. Witness the Jews who have been
    demonstrating, there.
    
    Auschwitz is far too serious a matter to be dealt with with ridicule.
    
    To the topic:
    
    All rules of the Catholic Church which are relevant in this question
    speak against Glemp. The Bishop in whose diocese Auschwitz is located
    has signed the agreement with his Jewish counterparts. This is his
    right, and the agreement is valid for the entire Catholic Church.
    Re-negotiating this issue is clearly a violation of this agreement.
    
    That's why Wojtyla (the pope) is quiet. If he says "valid", he is
    severely exposing Glemp (which I wouldn't mind a second, personally),
    if he says "invalid", he exposes the Church. 

    Commentingly yours,
    
    Chris
    

    Re .11:
    
    Agreed. It would be a disservice to Judaism if I tried to claim
    that the Jews of Eastern Europe all lived like Tevye in "Fiddler
    on the Roof". From what I've read, Pre-WWII Eastern European Judaism
    touched all aspects of life from music and art to politics. If memory
    serves, many of the Jews who participated in the Warsaw Uprising
    were also political activists.
    
    I guess what I was trying point out was that dictators like Stalin
    and Hitler manipulated/exploited ethnic groups like the Ukrainians
    as it suited their purpose. For example, Hitler "liberated" Eastern
    Europe from Soviet domination and then promptly sent any untermensch
    Slavs into slavery or the death camps while at the same he exploited
    the hatred Slavs had for Jews by employing certain
    ethnically-acceptable Slavs as guards at the death camps. The human
    suffering resulting from this diabolical approach didn't trouble
    Hitler. The Soviets were no better. Whenever the "liberated" Eastern
    European ethnic groups got too restive over problems caused by the
    Soviet system, the uprisings were either brutally suppressed or
    the Jews were conveniently blamed by the Russians for causing the
    problems. This had the advantage of refocusing the anger of the
    ethnic groups from the Soviets to the Jews (very convenient).
    
    In short, anti-semitism hasn't left Eastern Europe IMHO. However,
    if it isn't minimized somehow, again IMHO, with the first sign of problems
    in the new government in Poland, you can bet the anti-Solidarity
    forces will once again exploit anti-semitic feelings to topple
    democracy in that country.
    
    Just some thoughts......
    
    Mark

                <<< GVRIEL::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;1 >>>
                -< BAGELS and other things of Jewish interest >-
================================================================================
Note 765.13                Poland and the Jews, Part *                  13 of 14
SUTRA::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool."      29 lines   6-SEP-1989 06:06
                              -< Some background >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    What I find fascinating is that the Catholics regard Aushwitz as 
>>    a place of salvation, while the Jews regard it as an *anus mundi*.
 
  >  Two things here: I'd appreciate if you could replace "the Catholics" by
  > "some Catholics", and "the Jews" by "some Jews", in the future. I
  >  thought it was obvious to you that strongly diverging opinions exist
  >  within the Catholic community, in this matter. Secondly, not even the
  >  nuns consider Auschwitz as a place of salvation, nor do many Jews that
  >  I know consider it as *anus mundi*. Witness the Jews who have been
  >  demonstrating, there.


Perhaps I misinterpret the intentions of the Polish Catholic Church in 
establishing and maintaining a convent at the camp.  The expressed 
intention is to establish a place where prayers may be offered, at this 
most dreadful location, for the redemption of the transgressions that 
created it.  Divine forgiveness is available if one prays hard enough 
and sincerely enough.

A more subtle intention may be to cast the shadow of the cross over 
the camp and thus to de-Judaize the actions that took place there.
It is perhaps this latter that the Jews are protesting.  I do not 
believe that any Jew sees anything sacred or redemptive in the place. 
What these protesting Jews insist upon is that the evidence not 
disappear.
    

    re .6
    
    I read an article that said Solidarity (and other  groups protesting
    Glemp's position) were denounced by some as being Jewish dominated. 
    Kinda of tells you where some of these folks are coming from, using
    that old tactic.
    

    I just heard on the morning news (CNN) that the Pope is now involved at
    the urging of Jewish leaders. He is now asking the Carmelite nuns to 
    vacate that property.

    Re: .18
    
    We'll believe it when we see it.
    
    BTW, one of the claims I've heard for the convent's establishment 
    on that site is that 25% of the victims were Christians. Someone
    pointed out to me that a large percentage of those Christians were
    actually there because they had 1/8th Jewish ancestry. I have read
    numerous stories about Christian CLERGYMEN being killed because
    
    JemJewish blood flowed in their veins.
    

    Did anyone catch "Nightline" last night? The subject of this note
    was the theme of last night's program, including an interview with
    Cardinal Glemp.
    
    My understanding is the Pope says the convent must move outside
    the site of the Aushwitz concentration camp and Glemp is defying
    the Pope. At least at a higher level within the Catholic hierarchy,
    there seems to be some sensitivity about Judaism. But this alas is
    nearly the 21st century and if the Pope can't make Bishop LeFebvre of
    France conform to the way Catholicism is practiced today (LeFebvre
    advocates a return to the Latin mass among other things - like helping
    Nazi war criminals), then it's hard to say whether he can impose his
    will or the church's on Glemp.
    
    Mark

    Mark, yes, I did watch "Nightline" last night.
    
    I'm glad the pope seems to be finally taking a more active role in
    resolving this. However, it does appear that Glemp is giving the impression
    of being rather intactable, pssibly to save face.
    
    I thought the comments by the Catholic, Polish-American journalist
    - Novak - expressed the feelings of many American Catholics: That
    the words and the tone Glemp a few weeks while referring to the
    Jews, was "very unfortunate".
    
    I'm wondering if Glemp is turning into an embarassment for the
    Vatican. (He'd surely embarass me if I was a Catholic).
    
      Alan

    Mark,
    
    With all minimum respect I might be advocating for LeFevbre, you're
    quite distorting the facts. If the LePen's alikes feel inclined to take
    his party, it yet doesn't mean that LeFevbre (or whatever spelling his
    name might have) is actively calling upon nazis.
    
    OK, I don't like the guy, either, but you better stick to accuracy
    in your reporting.
    
    Realigningly yours,
    
    Chris 

    Re .22:
    
    Hi Chris:
    
    My understanding is that a Nazi war criminal was able to seek refuge
    in a couple of LeFebvre's monastaries until being apprehended recently.
    
    That doesn't make LeFebvre a Nazi necessarily nor does it say that
    he had a direct role in the hiding the individual in question. What
    it does say is that LeFebvre's breakaway movement is certainly an
    organization of the far right wing. I don't know if they've gone
    as far as LaPen's movement but it certainly represents some very
    conservative Catholics.
    
    Mark

>    I don't know if they've gone as far as LaPen's movement but it
>    certainly represents some very conservative Catholics. 
    
    Well, actually, they are no Catholics at all, "legally speaking":
    they have been excommunicated.
    
    By the way, has it been noticed and noted in the US that Glemp came
    somewhat back to normal? He confirmed that the Carmelites will leave
    the CC site.
    
    Updatingly yours,
    
    Chris 

    Re .24:
    
    Hi Chris:
    
    No, I hadn't noticed but that's good news.
    
    BTW, and I don't want to get off the subject with this, I would
    think one would be concerned about "excommunication" only if one
    recognized the authority of the Roman Church. Excommunication only
    works if the church hopes by that action to keep an otherwise loyal
    but reform-minded Catholic in the fold so to speak. If a reformer
    has given up on changing an institution like the Catholic church
    and could care less whether he/she is involved with the rites of
    the church, then excommunication means very little from the point
    of view of the reformer.
    
    I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Lefebvre falls in the
    first category. Martin Luther (and others) fall into the second
    category.
    
    Mark

    If you were to convert, what would you convert to?
    
    I don't know of any religion which does not have it's haters, and
    Judiasm is no exception.  There are Jews who are prejudiced against
    Christians, or Moslems, or Blacks, or Orientals, or whatever else might
    make a person different.
    
    There are also people who work to eliminate prejudice.  These are the
    ones truely in God's service.  And many of them are Catholic.
    
    Perhaps before you change religions you should seek out some of these
    people and find out how they reconcile their actions with the
    disagreeable actions, now and in the past, of the Church.
    
    				Paul
    

    Re .28:
    
    Don't feel bad about discovering that the Roman Catholic church
    has not exactly been the most enlightened institution with regard
    to tolerance of alternative viewpoints.
    
    There are skeletons in the Protestant closet as well.....Martin
    Luther, for all the good he did, had a terrible track record with
    regard to tolerance of the Jews. From what I've read, he hoped the
    Jews of his day would join him against the Catholic church and when
    they didn't he castigated them with some pretty virulent anti-semitic
    diatribes.
    
    So there are plenty of skeletons in the Christian closet.....the
    good news is that Christians are beginning to wake up to that fact.
    The sad news is it apparently took the Holocaust for that to happen.
    
    BTW, I can empathize with your struggle to find your way and also
    how your family might react. It's a hard decision for sure.
    
    Mark

    Apparently, the Infallible Pope himself did whistle the Primate
    Glemp back in the Carmelites issue.
    
    Glemp's first reaction: "I didn't know that Ausschwitz meant so much to
    the Jews". 
    
    He's called Primate not by coincidence, believe you me.
    
    Reportingly yours,
    
    Chris

              
    Hi, folks.  I'm a Catholic, mind if I step in here?  (Although with
    the tone of some of the previous replies, I have to wonder if I'll
    really be welcome).
    
    Here's some of what I've gathered in the Catholic press with regard to
    the topic:  A small group of Carmelite sisters (10-15) decided to
    open a convent on the site of Auschwitz to pray for the souls of all
    who died there, Jew, Catholic, whatever.  Sincere Catholics believe
    that they can offer up prayers for the souls of the dead.  There's
    no way non-Catholics would be excluded from the prayers for the dead
    who died there so horribly.  The nuns then rented space from the
    Polish government.
    
    Incidentally, some 1-1/2 million Poles also died at Auschwitz, many
    of them Catholic.  I'm not Polish, but I have talked to Polish
    Catholics who did time in that very camp.  Consequently, in Poland,
    the site is seen very much as a scene of national tragedy, just as it
    is on a more global standpoint by much of the Jewish community.
    
    In any event, in February, 1987, after an interfaith discussion,
    an agreement was made to move the site within two years.  Now, I
    personally think the nuns had as much a right as anyone to be
    there.  However, once an agreement to move had been made, the move
    should have been made.
    
    When in February, 1989, the move hadn't been made, a group of Jewish
    protestors (led by a Mr. Weiss?) climbed the fence and entered the
    grounds.  A group of workers nearby saw the intrusion, and, not
    particularly liking such behavior, roughed up the protestors. 
    
    The Catholic press printed the entire text of Cardinal Glemp's speech,
    and I urge anyone wanting a full understanding of what he said to
    read it, and not just base their opinion on the excerpts from the
    NY Times.  As far as the protestors's intending  bodily harm of the
    sisters- well I think we can safely dispense with that idea.  As far
    as Glemp's reaction, that he didn't know that Auschwitz meant so much
    to the Jews- I guess it's obvious that he did not.  Living in Poland
    under a leftist government and a controlled press, this may be under-
    standable.  Perhaps this whole experience has been an education to
    the man, and to his credit he has completely turned around his stance;
    can't we allow this?
    
    As far as John Paul II, each pope has a
    slightly different policy.  It's been JPII's to leave local matters
    pretty much in the hands of the local primates.  In other words,
    decentralization of authority.  Thus, it was very much in line with
    his policies to not step into the Auschwitz issue until it threatened
    to grow apace.  When the matter did grow, and was not being resolved
    locally, he stepped in and acted quickly, offering Vatican money to
    help in establishing a center 600 meters down the road from where
    the nuns are now.  Despite the radical cries on both sides of the
    issue, I think he acted very diplomatically.
    
    	Dave
    

re: .31

I think you a missing an important point.  First of all we do aknowledge that 
other people besides Jews died at Aushwitz, however in regards to the Jews
the intent of the Germans was to exterminate a nation, not just those who 
were in the way politically.

Secondly Aushwitz and other campsites are regarded by us as cemetaries, and as
such it is forbidden to build ANY structure upon them, least of all a convent.

--David

    
    RE: -.1
    
    (Sorry to be so late in replying- our systems just returned following
    the earthquake).
    
    Re the point about building a structure on a cemetary, the building the
    nuns intended to rent was already there, they weren't planning to build
    a new one.
    
    So anyhow, thoughts about the resolution?
    
    	Dave

    Land has been bought near to the CC. There the Church will build.
    
    Clarifyingly yours,
    
    Chris