From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:34:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.150420.18525@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:
[...]
>>Seems funny that a Jew has to tell a (presumably) Catholic colleague
>>how his church works.  "Market of ideas," indeed!

>>Roger

>>>PS2. Since I posted my original text I returned to the text which initiated
>>>this discussion.  It turned out that the book was offered by the CHURCH
>>>bookstore and presumabely printed by Church offices (which also means
>>>that the book would have to bear the sign of Imprimatur - official
>>>Catholic censorship) - this is entirely different story. I do not think
>>>that Catholic Church should be involved in promoting this kind of books.
>>>Unfortunately Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and we
>>>don't have easy ways to impose our will on it.

[As I pointed out, I had missed this bit, and subsequently responded to
it separately.]

>   It seems to me that we have major misunderstanding here.  It is also
>strange for me to take a position I do not agree with.

Why not ?  George Bush does it... 8-)

>  I will try to clarify everything briefly:

>1. I am not Catholic and in my PS2 I made an error about Imprimatur and
>was kindly reminded about it in a personal letter.

OK, sorry.  I'm not Catholic, either, but, as a musicologist, I've ab-
sorbed a bit of knowledge of how the Church works/worked.

>2. We have two problems here:

>  a) what Church should or should not print - and I would leave this
>     question to people more knowledgeable about Catholic Church issues;

Look, you don't need to be very knowledgeable about Church issues to 
form a position that they shouldn't print the _Protocols_  -- not that
anyone has accused them of doing so.  *Selling* it is bad enough.

>     I am not in a position to explain or protect the actions of the Church.

Nor would I expect you to.  The only actions relevant here are
*inactions*: why would that book last more than a day in the church
bookshop display case without strong disciplinary action being taken? 

>  b) whether books like Protocols should be printed and freely distributed
>     in the free country.

I don't think we disagree here either.  Anyone is welcome to do just that.
But they must reckon with this: that people who know the true nature of the
book will question their motives in the strongest terms.

And since the book was seen in a *most* unusual place, a most *troubling*
one, given the character of church bookstores in general, it is not
unreasonable to ask for an explanation from the authorities in the
church, an arganization that officially opposes anti-semisitm ins the
strongest terms.

>  As far as (a) is concerned I am afraid that you jump into conclusions
>and built your case on a weak evidence.  Please return to the original
>thread and read it again (as I did).  The story goes like this:
>sombedy saw something which looked like something and was told by people this
>and that.  

This is *not* what Monica Orski wrote.

Monica *saw* the book in a church bookstore, and was told that the
parish priest was strongly anti-Semitic when she inquired about it.
She did *not* see "something that looked like something."  If you wish
to doubt her story, by all means contact her -- but don't misrepresent
it.  I'll repost it if you like.

>That's why I originaly objected to the strong accusations
>about anti-semitism in Poland.  I believe that we need stronger
>evidence then taht to put forward this kind of accusations.

Hello?  Nobody *made* the accusation in this case.  Nobody said this
was typical of Poland -- Monica included.  Monica and I and others
simply want to know what the hell is going on in that church and in
a hierarchy that doesn't come down on the priest in question like a
ton of bricks.

> You write:

>>We are distressing our horror and grief at a report that the book
>>is being sold, and therefore approved of, by a church, and that the
>>hierarchy of that church, which is usually very strict on doctrinal
>>matters, has seemingly voiced no objections to the sale.

>  Personally I do not see any evidence for this kind of conclusions
>in the original story.

Well, unless the book had *just* appeared there, and the hierarchy hadn't
heard yet, it's a safe bet that they chose not to act.  And if the
priest's reputation was indeed anti-semitic (and I have no reason to
doubt it -- why would someone make up an accusation like that?), then
the hierarchy surely knew about him and had the obligation to monitor
and control his action.

>  As far as (b) is concerned I am still not persuaded by your arguments.

I don't know what else I can say.  The presence of that book in a 
church bookstore is evidence that something is wrong -- not necessarily
in Poland, but certainbly in that parish.

>>  Deliberate forgeries have a special status among publications.

>  Since when ?!  Go to the local bookstore and check.  There are plenty
>of books atributed to somebody but actually written by somebody
>else (I am afraid that large parts of Bible fell into this category
>and it was done delibarately - prophets usually didn't write down
>their own words).  

That doesn't make them forgeries.  And it doesn't make them slanders
either.  If I were to write a book without your permission, that 
put into your mouth the opinion that, say, human sacrifice was a good
thing, you could bet that that book *would* have a special status,
especially after you sued me.  I would be forced by a court to 
withdraw all copies of the book, and in some countries I'd be forced to
print a public apology as well.  

The Bible does not fall into this category; it is not a deliberate
*mirepresentation* of what the Prophets said.  (Well, the OT isn't. 8-) )
Nor is any part of it intended to make the Prophets look bad.

Moreover, since the nature of the Bible is known to all, and its
authorship mainly an issue of belief system, it's a very poor
example.

>  Since you write that you don't suggest the book to be banned I assume
>that we basically agree that the very fact of the book being printed
>and shown on the display in the bookstore doesn't tell much about
>the intentions or personal believes of the bookstore owner or printing
>company.

No, we do *not* agree.  (Actually, the bookshop owner is the Roman
Catholic Church, and we know a good deal about its intentions and
the personal beliefs of its current CEO, Mr. Woytyla.  The issue is
why one of the branch offices is going against company policy.)

But I am at a loss to come up with an explanation, other than anti-semitism,
for the display of the book in the church bookstore.  As for the printer,
I know of no publishing house other than anti-Semitic ones (e.g., neo-Nazis,
Arab governments -- the book is readily available in Syria and even Egypt,
I'm told) who publishes or distributes it.

Now, try and brainstorm for a moment: why *would* a church bookstore
sell this book?  

Roger

Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:17526 soc.culture.polish:3141