Zionism why is it different then other forms of nationalism
#1
Why is Zionism look at and argued over with a different tone then other nationalism? whats the difference?


Reply
#2
Argued by whom? Pro- or anti-Zionists? Or both?
Different in what way?

Mind elaborating?

Reply
#3
I don't think there is a worldwide agreement on the definition of "nationalism." One man's "nationalism" can be another man's "fascism" or another man's "patriotism" or another man's "ethnocentrism", etc. Yes, it does need elaboration. I think we can all agree that most "nationalists" consider their nation supreme over other nations. But what that entails, or how it manifests itself, is another story.  Zionists believe that Jews have a divine right to the nation of Israel; that it is the land promised to them and their ancestors by God (and they have Old Testament scripture to support their beliefs). Americanism (as defined and condemned by the Church) means promoting the principles of America over Catholic teaching... such as religious freedom over religious tolerance, a complete separation of church and state, individualism, etc. which are basically Protestant/liberal in thought. Also, a heightened sense of patriotism; "my country, right or wrong" and the like, can fall under the "Nationalist" umbrella.  I have to ask... is Zionism officially condemned by the Church?  - Lisa
Reply
#4
Theodore Herzle's diary recollections of meeting with Pope St. Pius X to solicit Catholic support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine:

Quote:
We cannot favor this movement. We are not able to block the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never favor it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always holy, is sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish People."
 
... There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith … in that case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them. The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own, but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.

... I have always been in friendly relations with the Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their soul see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted to the true faith in a miraculous manner – on the road to Damascus. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

Reply
#5
PilgrimageofGrace Wrote:Theodore Herzle's diary recollections of meeting with Pope St. Pius X to solicit Catholic support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine:

Quote:
We cannot favor this movement. We are not able to block the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never favor it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always holy, is sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish People."
 
... There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith … in that case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them. The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own, but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity.

... I have always been in friendly relations with the Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their soul see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted to the true faith in a miraculous manner – on the road to Damascus. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

A wise and gracious response.
Reply
#6
Satori Wrote:A wise and gracious response.

I agree.

- Lisa
Reply
#7
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
Satori Wrote:A wise and gracious response.

I agree.

- Lisa

St Pius X was pretty great all round.
Reply
#8
devotedknuckles Wrote:Why is Zionism look at and argued over with a different tone then other nationalism? whats the difference?

Well, Zionism is a form of racial nationalism – i.e.- a nationalism based on the concept of establishing a state for the exclusive benefit of  a particular racial/ethnic group (in the case of Zionism for the Jews), rather than a nationalism for the benefit of all the people in a particular area.

This being the case, it has led to all manner of outrageous things.  Arabs who were born there are/were ethnically cleansed (and forcibly prevented from returning), in order to obtain a super majority of Jews, while at the same time one of its fundamental laws (the law of return) states that any Jew (from anywhere in the world, even if he cannot name a single ancestor from which he can show lineal descent who ever lived there) has a right to “return” there.

In my view, Zionism (as a form “Jewish Nationalism”) is no better or worse than “White Nationalism” would be, if it had (as was the case with apartheid era South Africa) the raison d’etre of establishing a “White state”. 

 

The inequity of it all is only emphasized by the fact that the state to which the form of nationalism aspires is/was established in an area with a majority of non-members of the desired racial/ethnic/national group.

 

I hope this explanation helps.
 

Reply
#9
In his biography of Hilaire Belloc, AN Wilson quotes Belloc's account of his audience with Pope Benedict XV in 1916:

Quote:One thing moved him, which was the sending of Jews to the Holy Land. He kept on saying to me, "C'est une honte! C'est une honte [It's a disgrace]". I told him that it would bring its own reward.

The following year Benedict XV received Zionist leader Nahum Sokolov:

Quote:It was as though Herzl's audience was being annulled. 'Have I correctly understood Zionism?' asked the Pope when the opening formalities were over. 'What a reversal of history! Nineteen centuries ago Rome destroyed Jerusalem, and now, desiring to rebuild it, you take the path to Rome!'

In his reply Sokolov recalled the fate of the Empire and compared it to that of the Jewish nation: one had vanished, the other was reclaiming its land.

'Yes, yes,' agreed Benedict with enthusiasm, 'this was providential. God willed it.'

The Pope then asked Sokolov to explain the Zionist project in detail. Sokolov answered as follows: 'Our programme is twofold. It aims first to create in Palestine a spiritual and cultural centre for Jewry, and secondly to establish a national home for oppressed Jews. Our desire is to build up in that country a great centre where Jews will be able to develop their culture freely, to educate their children in the spirit of their ideals, and to devote all their energies to making their National Home a model of Jewish civilisation and morality.'

The Pope was deeply impressed. 'That is a wonderful idea,' he said. Then he wanted to know whether this plan had been contrived with a view to preventing persecutions. Sokolov answered in the rhetorical terms which came naturally to him. He referred to the right of the Jews 'to a place in the sun—in our land.'

' We look forward,' he said, 'to the rebirth of historical Judaism, to the spiritual and material revival of the homeland that personifies our national genius and our Biblical tradition in its purest sense. We claim the right of Freedom which cannot be denied to any people.'

'But is there enough space,' asked the Pope, 'in Palestine, to carry out your plan?'

To this question which was to be asked so often not only then but in the course of the next thirty years, and on which so much depended, Sokolov returned a skilfully evasive reply. 'There is the possibility of reaching our goal,' he said, 'but first we must prepare the ground.' ... Then they discussed Zionist intentions regarding the Holy Places, before the Pope returned to the original question, which he posed afresh: 'Are many Jews likely to settle in Palestine?'

Sokolov again replied with a skilful and grandiloquent evasion. 'The best - and those who have suffered most,' he said, and then led the conversation away from that subject to the great agricultural work of the pioneers, and from there to a dis cussion of the Jews in Eastern Europe.

The last words of Benedict at this audience were spoken in answer to Sokolov's request for moral support, and were to be long remembered by Zionists. He said: 'Si, si, io credo che noi saremo buoni vicini' - 'Yes, I believe that we shall be good neighbours.' (Source.)

Whatever caused this extraordinary about-turn, a precedent had been set and it was probably only a matter of time before the Vatican recognized the State of Israel.


Reply
#10
Cambrensis Wrote:Whatever caused this extraordinary about-turn, a precedent had been set and it was probably only a matter of time before the Vatican recognized the State of Israel.
Personally I believe the "whatever" to be Satanic Freemasonry in the Church of Rome. Satan and his evil men to be sure
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)