Pope 'sorry' his speech is seen as hurtful to Muslims

by **hava1** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:41 pm

<a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763199.html" target="top">Assailants attack five churches in West Bank, Gaza</a>Assailants hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, causing no injuries, but sparking fears of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians. The attacks on four of the 10 churches in the West Bank town of Nablus, and on the Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza City unsettled that peaceful coexistence. The assaults began with fire bombings of Nablus' Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches, which left trails of black scorch marks in their wake. At least five firebombs were hurled at the Anglican church, whose door was later set ablaze in a separate attack. Smoke billowed from the church as firefighters put out the flames In a phone call to The Associated Press, a group calling itself the "Lions of Monotheism" claimed responsibility, saying the attacks were meant to protest the pope's remarks about Islam. Hours later, four masked gunmen doused the main doors of Nablus' Roman and Greek Catholic churches with lighter fluid, then set them ablaze. They also opened fire on the buildings, pocking their outer walls with bullet holes. In Gaza City, militants opened fire from a car at a Greek Orthodox church, hitting the facade. A policeman at the scene said he saw a car escape with armed men inside. Explosive devices were set off at the same Gaza church on Friday, causing minor damage. There were no claims of responsibility for the last three attacks. Said Siyam, the interior minister from Hamas, ordered extra protection for churches across the West Bank and Gaza. "The atmosphere is charged already, and the wise should not accept such acts," said Father Yousef Saada, a Greek Catholic priest in Nablus. Ayman Daraghmeh, a Hamas legislator, denounced the attacks, and urged Palestinian police to do more to protect Christian sites. Growing chorus of criticism in Muslim world against Pope Iran condemned Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday for making what it called "a big mistake" in his comments on Islam and demanded an apology, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "The pope's expression contradicted his own leadership of a divine religion. Promotion of incorrect beliefs (about Islam) is considered a big mistake," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini was quoted as saying. Hosseini said the pope should "revise and correct" his remarks in order to prevent Muslims' indignation. In the first reaction from a top Christian leader, the head of Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church said in remarks published Saturday that Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam were "against the teachings of Christ." Coptic Pope Shenouda III told the pro-government Al-Ahram newspaper that he didn't hear the pope's exact words, but that "any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ." "Christianity and Christ's teachings instruct us not to hurt others, either in their convictions or their ideas, or any of their symbols - religious symbols," Shenouda was quoted as saying. Egypt's Copts, whose liturgy follows Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions rather than the Vatican, account for an estimated 10 percent of Egypt's 73 million people. Also on Saturday, Indonesians gathered outside of the Palestinian Embassy in Jakarta in protest over the pope's remarks. On Friday night, some 2,000 Palestinians angrily protested against the pope in Gaza City, accusing him of leading a new Crusade against the Muslim world. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh Friday joined the growing chorus of criticism in the Muslim world against Pope Benedict XVI, saying he had offended Muslims everywhere. Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric on Friday denounced Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks about Muslim holy war, and demanded the Pope personally apologize for insulting Islam. "We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him [Benedict] to offer a personal apology - not through his officials - to Muslims for this false reading [of Islam]," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah told worshippers in his Friday prayers sermon. Fadlallah's words were some of the strongest yet in response to the pontiff's remarks on Islam's prophet Mohammed and holy war, during a speech this week in Germany, which angered many in the Muslim world. "We call on the Pope to carry out a scientific and fastidious reading of Islam. We do not want him to succumb to the propaganda of the enemy led by Judaism and imperialism against Islam," Fadlallah said. On Friday, Pakistan's parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making what it called "derogatory" comments about Islam, and seeking an apology. Hours later, its Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the remarks. About 100 worshippers demonstrated after Friday prayers at Egypt's Al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most prominent institution, chanting "Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the Pope!" Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said on Friday Pope Benedict XVI must explain himself after insulting the Muslim world with "unfortunate" remarks about Islam and jihad. "He has to explain himself, and tell us what exactly did he mean," Gheit told The Associated Press. "It can't just be left like that." Many attributed the Pope's comments to a larger political bias against Muslims. "This is part of the whole war against Islam. Whenever we close a door on evil, they open another door," said an Egyptian man who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. "These Christians are all infidels. Benedict himself is an infidel and a blind man. Doesn't he see that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places were waged by Christians?" another worshipper said.One of the protest's organizers, a Muslim Brotherhood figure, shouted into a microphone, demanding an official apology from the Vatican. Hundreds of Egyptian riot police wearing black helmets and carrying heavy shields surrounded the mosque, preventing protesters from spilling over into the streets. Fadlallah said he condemns "and protests in the strongest terms" the Pope's comments, "particularly his quoting without any occasion of the words of the emperor in which he insults Prophet Mohammed." Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora instructed Lebanon's ambassador to the Vatican, Naji Abi Assi, to visit the Vatican Foreign Ministry to seek clarifications on the pontiff's remarks, a Lebanese government official said Friday. In neighboring Syria, the grand mufti, the country's top Sunni Muslim religious authority, sent a letter to the pope saying he feared the pontiff's comments on Islam would worsen interfaith relations. Sheik Ahmad Badereddine Hassoun, a moderate cleric, said the comments "raise intellectual, cultural and religious problems between followers of religious faiths." The letter, addressed to the Pope and delivered to the Vatican embassy in Damascus, avoided sharp criticism however, reflecting tight control by Syria's secular regime. "We expect that what has been attributed to your holiness is not true and hope we can all work together on spreading divine values that call for harmony, accord and cooperation," Hassoun wrote. Notably, the most violent denunciation so far has come from Turkey - a moderate democracy seeking EU membership, which Benedict plans to visit in November. Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Friday that Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or worse, a deliberate distortion of the truths. "He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades." "Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini." Even Turkey's staunchly pro-secular opposition party demanded that the Pope apologize to Muslims before his visit. Another party led a demonstration outside Ankara's largest mosque, and a group of about 50 people left a black wreath outside the Vatican's diplomatic mission. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi has tried to defuse anger, saying the Pope had not intended to offend Muslim sensibilities and insisting that Benedict respected Islam. In Pakistan, the Vatican envoy regretted "the hurt caused to Muslims." But Muslim leaders said outreach efforts by papal emissaries were not enough. "We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him [Benedict] to offer a personal apology - not through his officials," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah - Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric - told worshippers Friday in Beirut, Lebanon. Rashwan feared the official condemnations could be the precursor for widespread popular protests. Already there have been scattered demonstrations in several Muslim countries. "What we have right now are public reactions to the Pope's comments from political and religious figures, but I'm not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican," Rashwan said. ----------------------------------- anyone care to comment on the German pope's statement?

by **Gouda** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:23 pm

Ratzinger's mustard seed <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GD05Aa01.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Fro...5Aa01.html</a> By Spengler, Apr 5, 2005 That an earthly agency might hold the key to the kingdom of heaven is a fond hope of mankind, such that the passing of the Vicar of Christ touches even those who long since rejected that hope. Into whose hand will the key pass? News reports suggest that the succession may fall to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Vatican's chief theologian. With no way to game the odds that this might happen, I think it worth noting that Ratzinger is one of the few men alive capable of surprising the world. Ten years ago, he shocked the Catholic world with this warning:  We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity will resemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world. [1] He added, "Christianity might diminish into a barely discernable presence," because modern Europeans "do not want to bear the yoke of Christ". The Catholic Church, he added, might survive only in cysts resembling the kibbutzim of Israel. He compared these cysts to Jesus' mustard seed, faith of whose dimensions could move mountains. Ratzinger's grim forecast provoked a minor scandal, complete with coverage in Der Spiegel, Germany's leading newsmagazine. The offending sentences did not appear in the English translation, "Salt of the Earth", and were not discussed further in polite Catholic company. Cardinal Ratzinger is a Prince of the Church who threatened, as it were, to abandon the capital and conduct guerrilla war from the mountains. Years before Europe's demographic death-spiral was apparent, Ratzinger had the vision to see and the courage to say that the Catholic Church stood on the brink of a catastrophic decline. This observation is now commonplace. As George Weigel, John Paul II's biographer, wrote in March, "Europe, and especially Western Europe, is in the midst of a crisis of civilizational morale ... Europe is depopulating itself at a rate unseen since the Black Death of the 14th century." [2] He continued:  The demographics are unmistakable: Europe is dying. The wasting disease that has beset this once greatest of civilizations is not physical, however. It is a disease in the realm of the human spirit ... Europe ... is boring itself to death. Europe's current demographic trend lines, coupled with the radicalization of Islam that seems to be a by-product of some Muslims' encounter with contemporary, secularized Europe, could eventually produce a 22nd-century, or even late-21st-century, Europe increasingly influenced by, and perhaps even dominated by, militant Islamic populations ... it is allowing radicalized 21st-century Muslims - who think of their forebears' military defeats at Poitiers in 732 ... as temporary reversals en route to Islam's final triumph in Europe - to imagine that the day of victory is not far off. Weigel blames "a lethal explosion of atheistic humanism" in the form of World War I for Europe's decline. That cannot be quite true, for World War I burst out of the Balkans conflict between Catholic Austria-Hungary and Orthodox Russia. The messianic Slavophiles of the court of Czar Nicholas II confronted the most Catholic of all European entities, the multinational empire of the Habsburgs. France, to be sure, also incited Russia to mobilize, but it was the Catholic French army rather than the secular parties who most wanted war. It would be more accurate to say that "atheistic humanism" was the residue spot left on the ground after the Catholic Universal Empire had exploded. Catholic Europe spent its first 10 centuries absorbing hosts of invaders. Its genius was syncretic: each tribe could retain aspects of natural religion in the form of specific saints, rituals, and so forth, within the Catholic umbrella. That is the tragic weakness of this great project, as I have argued elsewhere. [3] The Universal Empire model collapsed with the Thirty Years' War, although not, as the usual explanation goes, because of the fanaticism of the Catholic and Protestant combatants. The Thirty Years' War became an artifact of French policy. France under Cardinal Richelieu first identified its own national glory with the salvation of the Christian world (Sacred heart of darkness, February 11, 2003). Messianic nationalism became the rival of Universal Empire, and the delusion of messianic nationalism passed from France to Russia and then to Germany, with ruinous consequences. The United States of America created a different, Protestant sort of universality, calling on the nation's immigrants to abandon their cultures and form a new people. The US might represent the only workable Protestant model. Without the weight of Church authority to suppress tribal eruptions, European Protestantism too easily became the bearer of a perverse, neo-pagan nationalism. For all the opprobrium heaped on the Vatican Nuncio in Germany, the future Pius XII, the Catholic Church offered far more resistance to Adolf Hitler than did the German Protestant churches. I doubt that the Catholic model ever again will provide a template for human society, but I am loath to see the Catholic message diluted or diminished. Our guesses about the direction of human events are no more than that; no human being has cracked the code of history. Until a generation ago, Christian opinion was nearly unanimous that the New Covenant had superseded the miserable remnant that clung to the Old Covenant of Judaism. The return of the Jews to Jerusalem persuades many Christians that the Jews yet may have a role to play. If the Jews can raise themselves from the ashes, what shall we think about the prospects for the Church that embodied Western civilization for so many centuries? In the US, the Catholic Church tends toward the model of a social-welfare agency, replete with the social mores of the political left, culminating in the sex-abuse scandal of the past several years. [4] In Latin America, "liberation theology" turned large parts of the Church into a quasi-revolutionary political movement. These efforts were doomed to failure. What religions do to ameliorate social or political conditions is incidental; religions exist because humankind is terrified of death. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger belonged to the "Augustinian" minority of senior clergy who tried to steer the Church back to its fundamental mission, namely repentance and salvation. Anthony Mansueto of the University of New Mexico, a left-wing critic, remonstrates bitterly against this current:  [Around Vatican II] a new Augustinian Right emerged which regarded Neo-Thomism and Social Catholicism as too focused on the social apostolate and ineffective in communicating what they saw as the essential message of Christianity: human sinfulness and God's offer of forgiveness. This group, which developed around the journal Communio, and which includes both the current pope and his chief theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, but of whom the most important theological representative was Hans Urs von Balthasar, explicitly rejects both the "cosmological" approach of historic Thomism, which rises to God through an attempt to explain the natural world, and the "anthropological" approach of the conciliar (and in a different way the liberation) theologians, in favor of an "esthetic" approach which gives priority to the passive reception of the self-sacrificial gift of Christ on the cross. The effect is a sort of clericalized Lutheranism. [5] Mansueto intends the term "clericalized Lutheranism" as an insult, but there is a grain of truth here. John Paul II's Augustinian leaning made him more of a unifying figure in the Christian world, in particular among US evangelicals. The scriptural rather than philosophical emphasis of the Augustinian current, moreover, deepened the late pope's instinctive sympathy for Judaism, the scriptural religion par excellence. Ratzinger was not only the Vatican's chief theologian, but John Paul II's closest theological collaborator. From his first academic work on St Bonaventure, Ratzinger took the Protestant bull by the horns. Scriptural revelation is an act by which God reveals himself, he argued, and revelation requires someone to whom revelation is made manifest. He wrote in his autobiography:  The word "revelation" refers to the act in which God shows himself, and not to the objectified result of this act. Part and parcel of the concept of revelation is the receiving subject. Where there is no one to perceive revelation, no re-vel-ation has occurred because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it. [6] For Ratzinger, this "someone" is of course the Church, as opposed to the Protestant contention that each individual must read Scripture for himself. By making revelation the subject of discourse, though, the Augustinian Ratzinger may have more in common with evangelical Christians than with the neo-Thomists of his own Church. For the first time, Catholic congregations in the US south are attracting the sort of people who normally would join evangelical denominations. On the surface, the US Church is deteriorating, bulked up by Hispanic immigrants but losing clergy and parochial-school attendance. I consider the odds very small, but cannot rule out that the Wojtyla-Ratzinger current yet might turn out to be the mustard seed of which Ratzinger wrote. It is not, as some suggest, that the US Catholic Church has assimilated into the ambient Protestant culture of US, but rather that a Catholic current of ancient lineage might compete with evangelical Christianity on its own terms. The popular media have assigned Ratzinger the image of a dour conservative, cracking down on dissenting theologians. Quite the opposite might be the case: as pope, Ratzinger might conceivably become something of a unifying figure in the Christian world. From an institutional vantage point the Church appears weakened beyond repair. Not only the faith but also the faithful are at risk. I hold out no hope for today's Europeans. But Ratzinger places his hopes on the purely spiritual weapons that made Christianity a force to begin with. He has said, in effect, "I have a mustard seed, and I'm not afraid to use it." I do not know, of course, whether he will have the opportunity, but were he to ascend to the throne of St Peter, the next papacy might be more interesting than the last one. Notes: 1. In Salz der Erde, Im Gespraech mit P Seewald (Christentum und katholische Kirche an der Jahrtausendwende Stuttgart, DVA Verlag, 1996). 2. American Enterprise Institute. 3. Why Europe chooses extinction, April 8, 2003. 4. See Catholicism - isn't that a gay thing?, August 22, 2003. 5. Anthony Mansueto, "The political significance of the papacy, historically and in the present period", Journal of Religion and Society, Vol 7 (2005). 6. Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, Ignatius Press, 1999. *********** Kissinger warns of possible "war of civilizations" <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/ts_alt_afp/usattackseurope">news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/ts_alt_afp/usattackseurope</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/16/06 4:26 pm

by **blanc** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:25 am

anyone read german well enough to have read the Pope's address?

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:45 am

"The Lions of Monotheism"?! Catchy name. Any word from the vast and pervasive Israeli intelligence network, which knows who's riding which car, eating dinner in which home and pissing in which toilet, on this group's background, membership and aims? How did this group communicate its name and take responsibility for the vandalism of churches? Have any investigations been launched to apprehend the culprists? No, I haven't heard of any, either. Anyway. I'm sure it's more representative of Muslim opinion and sentiments than any of the organizations that actually exist. Re: the Pope's statements, no question that people are furious, and taking them very, very seriously, because of their source. Yesterday evening, the airwaves here in Egypt (satellite and local) were filled with heated discussions about the context of his statements and accusations that the Pope is willfully ignorant about Islamic thought and history, and that this was not the first time he has made offensive comments to and about Muslims. The head of the Coptic Catholic Church, who is not only a Christian but an Islamic scholar, suggested that the Pope, being the product of a narrow Catholic theological education, could benefit from more educational exchanges with Church leaders from the Middle East. But Muslims were mostly accusing the Pope of dismantling the excellent Catholic-Muslim relations that had been established under JPII, and of offering them as a sacrifice to the Bush administration and a gift to Zionists in their campaign to demonize Muslims. What did Pope Ratzinger actually say during his lecture, that has caused such fury and offence? I've put the offensive passages in bold and my own comments in italics: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. ("an educated Persian?" no name??) It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. (Again, if there WAS a "Persian interlocutor"... So, now we know it's the Byzantine Emperor's account during war-time, of his discussion with "some guy" speaking on behalf of his enemy. If this Persian was so educated, why did he not respond to the Byzantine emperor's fallacious statements? Or if he did respond and this was not recorded, then why is Pope Ratzinger quoting from such a biased and hostile source?) The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called -three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue. In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury , the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. (Professor Adel Theodore Khoury, in his book, "Les Theologiens Byzantins et L'Islam" examines how the Byzantine theologians fought the spread of Islam, which they saw as a direct threat, through propaganda designed to portray Islam as a heretical, pagan and savage faith for the simple-minded) The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 (in the Quran) reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. (what experts? Islamic scholars are unanimous that the above sura was written when Mohammed was at the height of his power and influence. This fallacy is either due to ignorance, [but then who are "the experts?] or evidence of malice on the Pope's part) But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". There is no such quote by Mohammed. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. (This is called "the straw man" logical fallacy, defined as follows: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html">www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html</a>) Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Some Muslims questioned whether Pope Ratzinger would have dared make such an attack, using ACTUAL quotes from the Old Testament, to condemn, say, Judaism... Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philos, this statement is self-evident. Oh irony of ironies! That the Pope should quote Khoury referring to the "Greek" philosophy that was outlawed and would have been totally lost for all time by...the Catholic Church, if it had not been preserved by the Muslims!! But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[/b] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry. This view that Christianity is based on pure reason in contrast to the irrationality of Islam, is contradicted in St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, which could logically be used to accuse Christianity of being based on irrationality: "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong... Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."" "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 2:3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 2:4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 2:5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power..." <a href="http://biblia.com/jesusbible/corinthians1.htm">biblia.com/jesusbible/corinthians1.htm</a> <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html">www.vatican.va/holy_fathe...rg_en.html</a> <hr></blockquote> Anyway. According to the offended Muslims, even the "apology" was insulting, since it implied that Muslims were only offended because they misunderstood, not because there was anything offensive in either Pope Ratzinger's wording and meaning. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that says the Church "esteems" Muslims. The pope "thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions," Bertone said in a statement. "Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom,"' Bertone said, citing words from another speech by Benedict during the German trip. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/world/main2012335.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...2335.shtml</a> <hr></blockquote> On a personal note, I'm pleased to see that the heads of the Coptic Orthodox, Catholic and other churches in Egypt and the Middle East have registered their opposition to Pope Ratzinger's remarks. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alicethecurious>AlicetheCurious</A> at: 9/17/06 3:44 am

by **blanc** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:52 am

I've only read the full text in English, doubtless some nuances may be lost in translation. the sacrifice being offered to demonizers of Muslims is surely religious tolerance and rational debate those offering the sacrifice are doing it by machine gunning churches and demanding that the Pope be hung in the streets. Anyone's guess who is pulling their strings

by **dbeach** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:21 am

this pope functions as one of the point men for the PTB inciting hatreds in the name of his/their god{s}. as was said above.. quite un-Christlike

by **greencrow0** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:49 pm

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm</a> b View Pic As the Pope demanded ransom--in the form of world wide condemnation of muslims...Christ was seen waving in the background,...in an attempt to signal that He was being held against His will. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **darkbeforedawn** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:07 pm

Love it!!! This is like when the group in my town pickets the synogogues about the war in Lebanon: "What does the Torah say about cluster bombs?" and "Thou shalt not KILL" These obvious hateful instigations by major religions are like cartoons. I'd laugh but too many are dying. The Pope obviously has not forgot his early training as a Nazi.

by **blanc** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:19 pm

can't get into blame the pope for the reaction mindset based on contents of his speech. was deeply offended at fatwa on rushdie - against my most strongly held beliefs in freedom of expression and sanctity of human life, but didn't find it an excuse to shoot up places of worship and threaten retaliation. the reaction of some parts of the muslim world is disproportionate to the offence claimed, and serves the image of a peaceful religion ill. I'm not enough of a scholar to know the mediaeval text cited, nor to know if the persian was ever identified in it, so have no way of evaluating Alice's arguments. it occurs to me that the identity of the emporer's companion might not be recorded, and to describe it as a hostile source is to apply a biased judgement on a historical doc. no?

by **AlicetheCurious** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:53 am

Anybody who commits violence in order to prove how non-violent and rational they are, is, in my opinion, an idiot. There is no shortage of idiots, I think we can agree on that. But that does not affect my argument, that Ratzinger was speaking either out of ignorance or willful malice. Maybe an ordinary person would not know this, but surely a scholar such as he would be aware of at least two very serious misrepresentations, that in my opinion reveal this as a polemic against Islam rather than any serious scholarly discussion: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.<hr></blockquote> 1) Ratzinger is trying to say that based on Mohammed's own command, Islam was spread through violence and terror, unlike the Church's own methods of appealing to reason. 2) As I mentioned before, it was the Muslims who preserved the writings of the Greek philosophers, which otherwise would have been lost forever. When Ratzinger quotes Khoury "as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy", he is pretending not to know most scholars argue that it was the Byzantines under Bishop Theophilius who burned the library at Alexandria, the world's greatest repository of ancient wisdom, and that the Byzantine Pope John Chrysostom described this destruction as "a great achievement". If someone can explain to me how Ratzinger, a supposed scholar of church history, can make such a glaring 'error', I will concede that he is ignorant rather than malicious. Anyway. The same history is used by other scholars to support the opposite argument, which makes you wonder whether the whole thing is futile except for propaganda purposes. For me, it confirms my deep conviction that religion, any religion, and politics should never touch, because upon contact, they create a noxious poison. Here's a sample of someone arguing that it is the Christian Church that was spread through ignorance and violence, while Islam was the opposite: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> It is almost impossible to get a clear picture of Europe during this dark century (the 6th) because for two hundred years after its beginning there was scarcely a Christian who could either read or write. The only important historian of this century was the half-illiterate Pope Gregory the Great, who is described by historians as "the most inveterate enemy of learning who ever lived," and whose Dialogues make it difficult to believe that they could have been written by a prominent man and addressed to adult minds. Taking as his motto, Ignorance is the mother of devotion, Pope Gregory celebrated his rise to power by burning the Palatine Library and by forbidding the study of mathematics and the classics. He was so proud of his own ignorance that he openly boasted of the ungrammatical construction of his own writings and severely censured a priest for paying attention to the rules of grammar. ... The study of philosophy was a state crime, and any one caught with a philosophical book in his house was accused of magic and put to death. The persecution of scholars steadfastly maintained by the Christian Church for over four hundred years had gradually driven all students of science and philosophy out of Europe. These people sought and found refuge in Arabia, the still unconquered land of liberty in those days, where they continued to promulgate the knowledge which had caused their persecution and exile. The persecuted Gnostics gave the Arabs a knowledge of Greek philosophy. The Nestorians made them acquainted with the Neoplatonic writers and the persecuted Jews instructed them in the Kabala. ... There was, however, one striking difference between Christianity and Mohammedanism which appeared at the very beginning of both religions and continued without interruption for many centuries. Where the Christians denounced learning, the Mohammedans encouraged it. Where the Christians destroyed libraries and universities, the Mohammedans built them. Within twenty-five years after the death of Mohammed, intellectual development had become a settled principle in the system of Islam. Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, became a patron of arts and sciences and devoted himself to the pursuit of knowledge. When the seat of government was removed to Baghdad, a new era of intellectual development arose which had ultimately a profound influence on the whole of Europe. The first Khalif of Baghdad was a devoted student of the sciences who established many colleges of medicine and law. When Haroun-al-Raschid (hero of the Arabian Nights) came into power he ordered a school to be attached to every mosque built. He never traveled without his retinue of a hundred scholars. Sir Mark Sykes gives us an illuminating picture of Mohammedan culture under his reign: The Imperial Court was polished, luxurious and wealthy. Every department of state had a properly regulated and well-ordered public office. Schools and colleges abounded. Philosophers, students, doctors, poets and theologians flocked to Baghdad from all parts of the civilized globe. (The Caliph's Last Message.) While the Christians were declaring that the world is flat, the Mohammedans were teaching geography from globes in their common schools. While the Christians were touching "holy relics" in the hope of being cured of their diseases, the Mohammedans were establishing great medical colleges conducted along strictly scientific lines, with rigid entrance requirements. In these colleges physiology and hygiene were studied, and their materia medica was practically the same as ours today. Their surgeons understood the use of anaesthetics and performed some of the most difficult operations known. A description of one of these Arabian hospitals recently published by the American University at Beirut relates that the number of patients admitted often amounted to 4000 daily. Every patient when discharged received a certain sum of money and a suit of clothes. The furniture and bedding in this hospital rivalled the appointments in the palaces of the Khalif and the princes. Efficient service was assured by capable physicians, competent inspectors, educated directors and active servants who attended to all the needs of the sick. What a contrast between the condition in Mohammedan Arabia and that found in Christian Europe! When a Christian fell ill in those days, his only hope of recovery depended upon the touching of some "holy relic" carried about by the monks, for touching which a substantial fee was asked. These relics, which are described by a monk who brought some of them back from Jerusalem, show the intellectual degradation into which Europe had fallen. They included a finger of the Holy Ghost; the snout of a seraph; one of the fingernails of a cherub; one of the ribs of the Word made Flesh; some rays of the Star which led the Wise Men to the cradle of the Holy Infant; a phial containing the sweat of St. Michael which exuded during his fight with the Devil -- "all of which things," the pious monk observed, "have I brought home with me." In the year 800 Pope Leo III. placed the royal diadem upon the head of Charlemagne, who showed his gratitude to the Church by inflicting capital punishment upon all who refused to accept Christianity or who still continued to eat meat during Lent. When Charlemagne substituted the Ambrosian chant in the Church in place of the old Gregorian, he ordered the singers to be burned along with their music. But Charlemagne's submission to Papal authority could not be pushed beyond a certain limit. He expressed his disapproval of celibacy by taking unto himself nine wives and several concubines, and he openly fought the Papal ban against education by trying to learn to read and write. In this, however, he was unsuccessful, never being able to do more than sign his own name. <a href="http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/darkages.html">www.wisdomworld.org/setti...kages.html</a> <hr></blockquote> In the thirteenth century, there was no record of the "Greek philosophy" left, EXCEPT in the Muslim world, which makes nonsense of Ratzinger's claim that the Byzantine emperor's "reason" was based on Greek philosophy, while the "educated Persian" lacked such a basis.

by **blanc** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:27 am

thanks Alice, that's placed the objections in a bit more context for me. there is something niggling away though - this address was given in a University, where many would be expected to be familiar with arguments around the texts. If the pope had wanted to say 'muslims believe in violence' - he need only kick off from the statements of clerics who have advocated violence. he did not need to pick a contentious historical text. (and yes the christian church has had its bloodbaths)

by **AlicetheCurious** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:52 am

Ah, yes... You WOULD think that those arguments, those facts, would be available in response to Ratzinger's spurious statements, wouldn't you? And yet, have you seen ANY of those responses in the media, which only covers the "anger" and "fury" of Muslims? I haven't, but maybe I've just missed them. Have you? As in, there go those dang Muslims again! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> After a while, it looks like Muslims are ALWAYS angry, usually in response to some obscure and sometimes trivial religious slight. It paves the way for dismissing and disregarding ALL concerns of Muslims and by extension, all Arabs.

by **rain** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:23 am

"This account of Urban II's speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban's visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the pope's arguments In the year of our Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul, in Auvergne, in the city which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman bishops and cardinals. This council was a famous one on account of the concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well. Having arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a certain spacious plain, for no building was large enough to hold all the people. The pope-then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those present in words something like the following, saying: "Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God, - as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all the faithful which has brought us hither. From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time. "On whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations, God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors. "But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.' [Another of those present at the Council of Clermont, Fulcher of Chartres, thus reports this part of Urban's speech: "Let those who have formerly been accustomed to contend wickedly in private warfare against the faithful fight against the infidel, and bring to a victorious end the war which ought already to have been begun. Let those who have hitherto been robbers now become soldiers. Let those who have formerly contended against their brothers and relatives now fight against the barbarians as they ought. Let those who have formerly been mercenaries at low wages now gain eternal rewards. Let those who have been exhausting themselves to the detriment both of body and soul now strive for a twofold reward" See a complete translation of Fulcher's report of Urban's speech in Translations and Reprints, Vol. 1. No. 2.] "Let hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial. "This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven.." When Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, " It is the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 " When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and, commanding silence with his hand, said: "Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, `Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them'; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!' [Deus vult! Deus Vult!] "And ee neither command nor advise that the old or those incapable of bearing arms, undertake this journey. Nor ought women to set out at all without their husbands, or brother, or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than an advantage. Let the rich aid the needy and according to their wealth let them take with them experienced soldiers. The priests and other clerks, whether secular or regulars are not to go without the consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went without permission. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests. "Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage, and shall make his vow to God to that effect, and shall offer himself to him for sacrifice, as a living victim, holy and acceptable to God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When, indeed, he shall return from his journey, having fulfilled his vow, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Thus shall ye, indeed, by this twofold action, fulfill the precept of the Lord, as lie commands in the Gospel, 'he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me" Source: James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History: Vol. I: (Boston:: Ginn and co., 1904), 312-31 <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html">www.fordham.edu/halsall/s...ban2a.html</a> ho hum. I'm also wondering, whilst the focus with Ratz's speech and the resultant media spin, is on Europe and the M.E., has anyone considered the impact on Christianized South America, and particularly Catholicized Mexico ? Has 'the Revolution' just been dealt a severe psychic blow?

by **Sweejak** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:46 am

Raimondo: <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709">www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709</a> It is still mystifying to me how such a few sentences could have gotten into the speech and how the result would not be predictable. Using a Persian (Iran) example at a time of war against Iran. This is not merely "politically incorrect" but incendiary. I have read somewhere, not sure where, that he was advised against using this example. If so why did he do it? This is what bothers me about Benedict. ( I no longer have the source available) It is that I heard Benedict discuss the radical events of the 60's, the "terrorism" of the Red Brigades, the bombing of the train station in Bologna, the killing of Aldo Moro etc as if these were really homegrown radicals. It turns out that these events were most probably part of Gladio and the Strategy of Tension. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>THE BOLOGNA TRAIN STATION BOMBING A huge explosion at the Bologna train station two years after Moro's death may have whitened the hair of many Italians - not just for the grisly toll of 85 killed and more than 200 injured - but for the official inaction that followed. Although the investigating magistrates suspected neofascists, they were unable to issue credible arrest warrants for more than two years because of false data from the secret services. By that time, all but one of the five chief suspects, two of whom had ties to SID, had skipped the country. 74 The T4 explosive found at the scene matched the Gladio material used in Brescia, Peteano and other bombings, according to expert testimony before Judge Mastelloni. 75 In the trial, the judges cited the ``strategy of tension and its ties to `foreign powers.''' They also found the secret military and civilian structure tied into neofascist groups, P-2, and the secret services. 76 In short, they found the CIA and Gladio. But their efforts to exact justice for the Bologna bombing came to nothing when, in 1990, the court of appeals acquitted all the alleged ``brains.'' P-2 head Gelli went free, as did two secret service chiefs whose perjury convictions were overturned. Four gladiators convicted of participating in an armed group also won appeals. That left Peteano as the only major bombing case with a conviction of the actual bomber, thanks to Vinciguerra's confession. The sorry judicial record in these monstrous crimes showed how completely the Gladio network enveloped the army, police, secret services and the top courts. Thanks to P-2, with its 963 well-placed brothers, 77 the collusion also extended into the top levels of media and business. <a href="http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html">www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gladio.html</a> <hr></blockquote> also here, my friend Parvati has done some digging. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A terrific archive. I knew quite a lot about the Italian connection, very little about the other Gladio tentacles... including Ali Agca's outfit, the Turkish "grey wolves".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.strategytalk.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=36554">www.strategytalk.org/phpB...hp?p=36554</a> The point is that without this information we are seeing a mistake being made and Benedict is falling for it. Or is he? I don't know. So, while Benedict's speech was wide ranging and goes into areas far beyond mere criticism of Muslim religion it has managed, perhaps unfairly, to add to the weight of those who wish to see a culture war.

by **stickdog99** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:10 am

Just think of who is being asked to respond to the Pope's highly provocative insult of Islam. Is it the leaders of Islamic nations? Is it Islam's head clerics? No. It's Islamic terrorist groups for Christ's sake! Of course they responded violently. They are crazy terrorists! How did McVeigh respond to Waco? Should we go to his ilk for their sage reactions every time Christians are insulted? West coast gansta rap stars can't dis east coast gansta rap stars without somebody threatening somebody with violence. Does that make all black people thugs? Ratzinger threw the pitch and the corporate media hit it right up the middle. Newsflash: The game is rigged so that our war machine and our authoritarians can have the apocalyptic enemy they so desperately need. The only way to make a bunch of poor, oppressed Muslims on the other side of world seem like an apocalyptic enemy is too make all Muslims out to be insanely and suicidally violent. I'm sorry that I now have to no choice but to conclude that the Pope is a big part of a highly effective and highly choreographed combination of old fashioned xenophobia and modern public relations.

Pope 'sorry' his speech is seen as hurtful to Muslims

Pope 'sorry' his speech is seen as hurtful to Muslims

Kissratzinger

german

Re: Kissratzinger

sacrifice

Re: sacrifice

Breaking News: Christ Kidnapped by Cabal

Re: Breaking News: Christ Kidnapped by Cabal

blame

Re: blame

thanks

Re: you're welcome

Deus Vult

Re: Deus Vult

Re: Deus Vult

Who is online