In response to Steven Shamrak's August 3rd piece, "Nothing Is Accidental," he alleges anti-Semitism on the part of Catholics and discounts the Pope's words of reconciliation at the recent World Youth Day In Sydney, Australia.
Mr. Shamrak angrily discounted the Pope's words because the wrong type, and more specifically, an unauthentic type of bread was used during an enactment of the Last Supper. Ironically, the bread used was Lebanese, and not a traditional Jewish variety.
I also tend to discount inaccuracies in reenactments, be they on stage or on film, and I also understand how the use of the Lebanese bread can particularly rile Mr. Shamrak's sensibilities.
Given the short context of his article however, I am forced to conclude that Mr. Shamrak is jumping to emotionally driven conclusions. As he did not state whether he investigated the actual reason why this bread was used, he appears to be accusing when he should instead be asking. He thus is only, as far as I can determine, projecting seething emotion, but no actual facts to back it up. Could one form of bread (the Lebanese pita) simply be larger, and thus easier to view by the audience? Or perhaps whoever set the stage simply erred or did not do their homework to ensure authenticity. Or perhaps the traditional Jewish variety of bread was not readily available during the production process of the reenactment.
To the point of the Lebanese bread, I think I understand Mr. Shramrak's sensitivity, but I cannot condone his anger. Lebanon is a small country, but it still contains many people. As an American citizen, I have a real big beef with the Mexican government, illegal aliens from Mexico (or anywhere else) because they break our laws and disrespect our sovereignty, and radical Mexican organizations like La Raza that are hostile to the US. But Mexico is a pretty big place, and I have nothing at all against the majority of the law-abiding, decent Mexican people themselves. Painting one country, or one religion with a broad brush is a pretty wide and erroneous swoop. Mr. Shamrak may have a legitimate beef with a weak Lebanese government that allows itself to be dictated to and manipulated by terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah to enjoy cover while attacking Israel, but neither the Lebanese people or Catholics are truly his enemies, except for maybe in his mind.
Mr. Shamrak also tried to make a convoluted and conspicuously angry connection to the portrayal of the Jews in the Bible and in history regarding Christ's crucifixion. Mr. Shamrak blames the occupying Romans instead of the Jews. I've heard this argument before and it just doesn't fly. This is a regurgitated talking point taken from a few Jewish Catholic bashers after the airing of Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion Of The Christ," which was taken from the Gospel of Luke, the most detailed Gospel version of the Passion. I will concede that history is to whatever degree, influenced by revisionists, if not inaccuracies. But in his voluntarily attached bio in his article, Mr. Shamrak interestingly states that he "was" (past tense) involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. For whatever reason you are no longer a Zionist, if such is the case, Mr. Shamrak, you at least once were one, and as a Zionist, or a former Zionist, I would imagine that you may believe, as does this Catholic, that the Bible is more than just history. It is also sacred scripture, inspired by the word of God, albeit via several books from several people in several languages over many years. My belief allows me little room for revisionist excuses in the Bible, and my readings of the Gospels tell me that both Jew and Roman alike played an active role in Christ's crucifixion. It is what it is, like it or not. Denial of that fact, Mr. Shamrak, is simply heresy. By the way, I'm sure you're probably familiar with the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Suffice to say that most of those Jews, Nicodemus aside, were hardly big Jesus Christ fans either. I also wonder why you have such a difficult time recognizing that Christ was not too popular with all the Jews. He certainly knew it, even before His Passion: "After two days He departed to Galilee. For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in His own country." (John: 4, 43, 44)
You failed to make your case of Catholic anti-Semitism, Mr. Shamrak. I don't see a big, Catholic conspiracy to insult Jews at World Youth Day, and even if such were the case, I think we would do it with something a little more substantive than bread. But you can't see that obvious logic through the prism by which you view Catholics because the view is too fuzzy. That isn't fog that is obscuring your vision at your end, Mr. Shamrak. It's anger.
What you did make a case for was your obvious vitriol toward Catholics, and your deep-seated anger in general. You are a very angry man, Mr. Shamrak. I know full well the persecution and atrocities the Jewish people have suffered and endured needlessly for ages, and to that extent, you have my understanding and sympathy, but Catholics didn't do it, and contrary to popular anti-Catholic hype of today, we had a wartime Pope, Pius XII who tried to help your people. Even the liberal and secular New York Times said so back then.
Whatever injuries or slights you have endured by Catholics, be they real or imagined, rest assured, that there is solace in forgiveness and reconciliation. Your anger serves to hurt no one any better than how much it hurts you, and only you can terminate that ugly bondage with a determined decision of forgiveness, if not emotionally, than for now, at least mentally. The rest will come later with sincere reflection and prayer.
Meanwhile, this Catholic genuinely wises you peace.
Doug Wrenn
Magic City Morning Star
