BERLIN – A German bishop has apologized for appearing to compare abortion with the Holocaust and the killing of millions of people under Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a remark condemned by Germany’s most prominent Jewish leader.
Joachim Meisner, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Cologne, said he would have left out the reference Adolf Hitler in his Epiphany sermon Thursday at the Cologne cathedral "had I had any inkling it would be misunderstood."
During the sermon, Meisner cited what he said were examples of humans taking on unlimited powers: "First Herod, who had the children of Bethlehem killed, then, among others, under Hitler and Stalin, who had millions of people exterminated, and today, in our times, millions of unborn children are killed," he said.
The head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, Paul Spiegel, called the comparison "unspeakable and offensive." [Source]
I am not quite sure what would be "unspeakable and offensive" about the statement. It shows no diminishing of the horror of Hitler and Stalin and only puts abortion in the context of the escalation of evil. Those children killed by abortion world wide in the last 30 years overwhelms the number of deaths under both Hitler and Stalin. Those who work in abortion clinics and those who worked in concentration camps relate similar stories of dealing with what they saw and did and how those under their charge became less than human to them. There are many other similarities. Jewish people were dehumanized by speaking of them as less than human and as parasites. Language in reference to them was modified so as not to admit their human dignity. How is this different from children in the womb where different language is used such as fetus or product of conception. These children are dehumanized by referring to them as only a potential or only as a mass of cells. Some medical texts in reference to abortion even refer to the child in the womb as a parasite that must be dealt with. We must never forget the horror of the holocaust (though it seems increasingly in the world with rampant anti-Semitism that they have forgotten) , but we must also not forget the modern horror happening right under our noses in our neighborhoods that abortion us.
Update: In a related story
The president of the Central Council for Jews in Germany, Paul Spiegel (photo), said the cardinal had insulted the millions of victims of the Holocaust and that he was considering taking the matter to court.
Spiegel told Friday’s edition of the newspaper Saarbrücker Zeitung he "cannot in any way understand" how anyone could compare abortion and euthanasia to the crimes of the Nazis. [Source]
He seems to forget that the Nazis started their training in executions via euthanasia. That first to clear out hospitals so save government funds those with physical or mental disabilities were euthanized. They became efficient at this and later used the same techniques on a larger scale to gas the Jews and other ethnic groups. To say that you "cannot in any way understand" the connection between abortion, euthanasia and the Nazis is to be blind to the similarities.
Tom of Disputations commented on this post and another comment by saying:
But everyone doesn’t know it — or better, doesn’t realize it.
The bishop was correct in his homily, and he was right to apologize. His job isn’t simply to state the truth, but by God’s grace to give the truth to others, and if he speaks the truth in terms that cause others to reject it, he should look for other terms.
This was a point I did not consider and is certainly valid. This view is also Biblically valid since St. Paul in 1 Corinthians said:
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful.
This was in reference to eating food that had been dedicated to idols. Paul knew that this did not effect the food at all and that morally he could eat it. Yet to keep from offending others who might fall in their own belief by his action he would refrain. Not everybody had the same depth of understanding that Paul did on this matter and so he acted prudently to prevent problems. The same thing happens with proclaiming the truth. Their are many ways to proclaim the truth and not all of them are fruitful. So on further reflection I can now understand why the Bishop would apologize for a statement that was truthful. The reaction to his statement is mistaken, though I can understand the hyper-sensitive attitude by people to anything pertaining to the holocaust. People should be worried about any sort of relativism of what happened especially since unfortunately there are many who either diminish or totally deny what happened in WWII.
26 comments
He made a very good point, and like you I don’t see where that is offensive or unspeakable. It’s really stating a simple fact that everyone knows.
But everyone doesn’t know it — or better, doesn’t realize it.
The bishop was correct in his homily, and he was right to apologize. His job isn’t simply to state the truth, but by God’s grace to give the truth to others, and if he speaks the truth in terms that cause others to reject it, he should look for other terms.
Great post, Jeff, especially after you added Tom’s comment–thoughtful and well said.
Tom’s comment really hit home here, and brought up a point that somehow sadly hadn’t crossed my mind.
Though Tom of Disputations is the sanest voice in the blogosphere, I have to disagree if he means that under the Pauline “not all things are helpful” principle a bishop should back away from a totally appropriate comparison just because someone is offended. Abortion is offensive. Spiegel isn’t rejecting the truth because of the terms in which it’s stated; he’s come to the discussion already rejecting the truth, else he would recognize the comparison as apt and wouldn’t be offended.
This “apology” sounds to me more like “I’m sorry you feel that way” than “I take it back” anyway–the bisop refers to his remark being “misunderstood.”
How much of people’s rejection of truth is do to the terms in which it is stated? I’m thinking not that much.
Wait a minute… This sounds like the reasons given for the lack of public condemnation of the Nazis in World War II (that it would not be helpful). Sometimes a clear statement can shift the debate.
Can someone explain to me why when anything is compared to the holocaust someone from the Jewish community is outraged? Since when did any one particular people have the market cornered on suffering and injustice? Since, as a rule, Jewish law forbids abortion unless there is a direct threat to the mother, because it is murder, people would see an undeniable correlation between these two events in human history. At least at a basic level. I know abortion is a hot button issue for many people but come on, saying the comparison is “unspeakable and offensive” is itself, offensive to me. I really do see the point about Paul and the Corinthians but would there have outrage if the genocide in Sudan and other African countries been substituted for the abortion issue? The helplessness of the individuals involved is no different.
Guess I better pray about this one.
Can someone explain to me why when anything is compared to the holocaust someone from the Jewish community is outraged? Since when did any one particular people have the market cornered on suffering and injustice? Since, as a rule, Jewish law forbids abortion unless there is a direct threat to the mother, because it is murder, people would see an undeniable correlation between these two events in human history. At least at a basic level. I know abortion is a hot button issue for many people but come on, saying the comparison is “unspeakable and offensive” is itself, offensive to me. I really do see the point about Paul and the Corinthians but would there have outrage if the genocide in Sudan and other African countries been substituted for the abortion issue? The helplessness of the individuals involved is no different.
Guess I better pray about this one.
I am a Jew, albeit one who believes in Jesus as Saviour and who is a member of a Protestant church. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with what Archbishop Meisner originally said, nor do I feel insuled. Abortion *is* another Holocaust, and it does not diminish the memory of the victims of the Shoah to say so.
The sad fact is that many of a liberal (political/philosophical) bent, Jewish and Gentile, view abortion as close to a sacrament (no offense intended) and when anyone dares to bring a little reality to the situation, they become offended.
By Tom’s reasoning, we can never challenge people’s misconceptions.
The only way the bishop’s statement could be offensive is if one does not recognize the unborn child as a living human being. Shall we be afraid of informing people of that fact, lest they take offense? I think not.
Futhermore, I would add that that is precisely the mindset that has brought us to the point where we are now, where many homilies are little more than a combination of “happy talk” and obscure philosophical ramblings.
Many priests are afraid to preach about abortion, contraception, etc., because they think it would be counterproductive, by causing offense. The end result is that those teachings go untaught, and we end up with an uncatechised laity.
There must be a balance, to be sure, between the possibility of offending, and a bald statement of the truth. But, we are far, far from the latter end, IMO.
By Tom’s reasoning, we can never challenge people’s misconceptions.
My reasoning is that comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not the way to challenge the misconception of the head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews about the truth of abortion.
The end result is that those teachings go untaught, and we end up with an uncatechised laity.
But they also go untaught in any meaningful sense if what is said causes offense and is rejected.
The purpose of a homily is not to be able to fill in a checklist of doctrine you’ve mentioned. It’s to help those whose souls are placed in your care (if only for the duration of the Mass) attain heaven. If a homily doesn’t do that, use a different homily.
So where are we? The head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews has — for not entirely inscruitable reasons — called the comparison between abortion and the Holocaust “unspeakable and offensive.” If the person who made the comparison loves him and desires his salvation, he should do what?
Tom,
The two cases may not be the same people. If you avoid offending one person by failing to frankly speak to 100, you end up where we are today, with a majority of Catholics in some regions supporting a “right” to abortion.
I think the “inoffensive” approach to teaching about abortion has been tried, and found wanting.
IMO, of course.
Yeah, Tom’s right. I mean, you didn’t see Jesus claiming that he was the Son of God or that bread would become His Body and Blood. I mean, they would have killed Him if they did that! He would have chosen a more gentle approach that would have reached the Pharisees where they were at.
Well, if He loved them and desired their salvation, I should add.
Shaking Off the Unspeakable
Paul Spiegel, president of the Central Council of Jews, called Friday for [Cologne Cardinal Joachim] Meisner to take back his words. “I expect that the cardinal will quickly and unequivocally distance himself from this unspeakable and offensive compari…
My reasoning is that comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not the way to challenge the misconception of the head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews about the truth of abortion.
But, the Head of Germany’s Central Council of Jews is not the only target audience (arguably, he wasn’t even a target audience). It seems the HGCCoJ was more interested in scoring political points than truly being offended. How can you be offended by someone likening your historical tragedy to the greatest tragedy currently gripping humanity? That is, of course, unless you really don’t see abortion as a tragedy. My guess is HGCCoJ sees it as a useful procedure. In that sense, Mark was right – this has more to do with offending liberal sensibilities than Jewish ones.
As for Paul’s eating sacrificed food – he new the action itself caused no harm (the food wasn’t poisoned, etc.), but also that refraining from taking the action would cause no harm, either. Somehow, I don’t see St. Paul taking back these words had the Head of Rome’s Central Council of Jews ca. 50 A.D. lodged a similar complaint against comparing abortion practices to innocent Jews being crucified by Romans.
If the person who made the comparison loves him and desires his salvation, he should do what?
Explain to him why the comparison is valid. If it falls upon deaf ears, it is for the Holy Spirit to further move him. And if he continues to refuse even the HS, then, it is his “choice” after all. Salvation can be hoped for and facilitated by preaching the truth; it cannot be forced.
Tom:
The normative way to have God transmit the Truth is to speak it to others. I do understand your point, and agree that in-your-face preaching may be not only counterproductive in some circumstances, but can be flat out wrong. But this is clearly not that type of case. Abortion has been compared to the Holocaust, the Gulags, and slavery ad naseum – why? Because it IS comparable, plain and simple.
JJ’s reductio ad absurdum fails because the Bishop of Cologne is not God and because it is not necessary to compare it to the Holocaust to argue against legal abortion.
Not only is it not necessary, it has proven to be counterproductive in this instance, and not just in the Church’s ability to preach to the HGCCoJ, as the second article Jeff linked to shows.
You can blame the listeners for not accepting the truth all you want, but that will not help the listeners accept the truth, and it won’t prevent any abortions.
The Church’s mission is not to make true statements in public. It’s to bring Christ to the world, and the world to Christ.
This whole controversy has its origin in Paul Spiegel’s refusal to recognize the simple fact that murder is murder. If he did recognize this truth he would not be complaining about some act of murder being compared to others.
Tom wrote:
“JJ’s reductio ad absurdum fails because the Bishop of Cologne is not God and because it is not necessary to compare it to the Holocaust to argue against legal abortion.”
I’m sorry, Tom, but the non-divinity of the Archbishop of Cologne is precisely why it *is* relevant. If the omniscient Word of God, Who knew the inmost hearts of the Pharisees and Who knows us better than we know ourselves did not see fit to craft His appeal to them in such a way that they would be swayed – and He had the power to do so – then how can you hold a lesser, mortal being to a higher standard? I grant you that it is not *necessary* – in the Aristotelian sense – to compare abortion to the Holocaust; but neither was it *necessary* for Christ to do as He did, although it certainly was *fitting*, which is a different class of things. I would go on to argue, additionally, that in my fallible opinion, the most fitting comparison between the scandal of abortion is the nightmare of the Holocaust. Perhaps Stalin’s purges might be more apt, but they are also less known. Good men can disagree about whether such a comparison is prudent, but I don’t think that you can flat out say that it is *wrong* to have made it, nor, barring knowledge of how it impacted everyone who heard it, that it was counterproductive. Several women may have been led to Christ by it. That the rabbi was not does not make the Archbishop’s statement a failure.
JJ:
From my point of view, you are the one holding the bishop to a higher standard than is reasonable, that of the perfect knowledge of Christ in crafting His message. We know that everything Christ did was fitting; from that it does not follow that anything we do that resembles something Christ did is fitting.
I haven’t said the bishop was wrong to make the comparison. I have said he was right to apologize, since in my judgment he was doomed to lose, probably quite badly, any public debate that would have followed. As far as I know, he did not deny the truth of the comparison, but only an intention to offend with it.
Also, it wasn’t only a single rabbi who condemned it; at least one politician issued a sharp rebuke as well. I suspect comparisons to the Holocaust sound much different in Germany than they do in the U.S.
I don’t see how you conclude that I am holding the archbishop to the standards of omniscience, but it’s pretty obvious to me that you are not going to change your mind, so there’s no sense in causing rancor by continuing; we’ll have to agree to disagree. I will say, however, that the Archbishop of Cologne probably has a better idea of how the Holocaust plays in Germany than you or I.
My real concern is that the principle espoused by you seems to be that the squeaky wheel gets the grease; i.e., anytime a churchman says something that some group considers offensive, if they yell loudly enough about it, then it becomes our Christian duty to softpedal it. Since there will always be someone claiming that they are offended (usually at the top of their lungs) by Church positions on gay rights, sexuality, abortion, etc, it seems that not a whole lot of witness to the faith would be allowed. I agree that we should not gratuitously offend people or indulge in shock value for its own sake, but sometimes you have to state positions clearly regardless of how they will be received. What troubles me is not so much this particular case as the general principle that seems to have been derived from it.
Comments are closed.