Pope Condemns Use of Religion for Violence

[emad]

Guardian

Thursday November 18, 2004 2:16 PM

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope John Paul II received Muslim, Orthodox Christian and Jewish religious leaders from Azerbaijan, calling their visit Thursday a symbol of tolerance and declaring that religion must never be used for violent aims.

``No one has the right to present or use religion as an instrument of intolerance, as a means of aggression, of violence, of death,'' the pope told the group.

Christians, Muslims and Jews must appeal together for an end to violence in the world ``with justice for all,'' he said.

``This is the way of religions,'' he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4623137,00.html

THIS from the man who says in the new Pope biography The Pope in Winter (John Cornwell, November 2004) that women are responsible for men's bad behavior.....

[elehhhhna]

1. NOW he tells 'em !

[goddess40]

16. He said it before the war started too

and our local priests told their congregations that they didn't have to listen to the Pope on this matter because it wasn't said in the correct format.

[VegasWolf]

32. "correct format"? like vhs vs beta

[DemBones DemBones]

39. No, like ex cathedra or NOT ex cathedra. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

35. He said it several times, and to George W. Bush's face.

What your local priests were explaining was that Pope John Paul II did not speak ex cathedra, which is Latin for 'from the chair', and means he was not declaring this as a policy of the entire Catholic Church. Popes don't often speak ex cathedra. JP II was trying to use his influence as head of the Church.

Priests usually go over the Church's "just war" doctrine when war is being proposed and refresh their parishioners' memories on the criteria to determine whether a war is just or not. I know I've heard those sermons for three damn Bush wars now, including the first Iraq war. Since the pope had spoken against the war, it would be appropriate for them to say that his words were important but not binding on Catholics. Some may have sounded pro-war, others anti-war, and others neutral.

Catholics depend on their own conscience to examine the "just war" criteria and how they do or do not apply to a particular war. My conscience agrees with the pope entirely.

[Mr Creosote]

2. And in a related development

pot accuses kettle of being "black"

[sui generis]

3. he's about 2000 years late don't you think? /nt

[arwalden]

7. Well... This Is Progress. Only Recently Have They Admitted That Galileo...

... was right.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. You disappoint me here, Allen. The FACTS are

that the Catholic Church had long, long ago recognized that Galileo was right but Pope John Paul II decided to issue a formal apology. A skeptic like you wants the facts, I know.

Also, I remember reading that, before Galileo got in trouble, there was a cardinal who knew Galileo was right but asked him to keep quiet about it -- it was a bad time to make waves. People in the Church have always been a mix of forward-looking people and heavy-duty traditionalists but few around here acknowledge the forward-looking Catholics.

John Paul II has really tried to heal a lot of old wounds, with apologies that the Church didn't do more to end slavery or to stop the Holocaust (never mind that the Chief Rabbi in Rome, Italy, became a Catholic after WW II because of all the Pope Pius XII had done to help the Jews.) For his kindness, John Paul II''s been ridiculed. He should have listened to the Duchess of Windsor, who said "Never apologize, never explain."

[devinsgram]

28. He also apologized for the crusades.

[DemBones DemBones]

40. Thanks, you're correct that he did. nt

[VegasWolf]

33. Not to mention downplaying the human cost of the Spanish Inquisition.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. You illustrate my point that his kindness gets him bashed by the usual

hateful little minds.

[happyslug]

52. Actually it was the pope himself.

Galileo and the Pope that condemned him had been friends for years (The pope when he was a Cardinal had sponsored Galileo's daughter into the Convent she wanted to join). Furthermore the Pope that Condemned Galileo had been the previous pope's science adviser and had advised the previous pope that Copernicus's theory that the Earth circled the Sun did NOT violate Scripture.

Thus when Galileo started to use Copernicus's theory, the church did not object. The problem was when Galileo started to state Copernicus's theory as Fact that the Church had a problem with Galileo.

The Church's problem was two hundred years before the Church had fought the first studies of the Science and Arts of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. In that Fight the Church had accepted such Arts and Science as being "Good" and not a violation of Dogma. This lead to a full embrace of such Science and primary Aristotle. Aristotle not only dabbled in most types of Science but also Logic and debate. It was this last set of Science that set the Catholic Church against Galileo.

Another factor was the than growing Protestant Reformation movement, calling into question Various doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church did not object to such reform movement (The Church admitted reform was needed) but any attack on core values was objected to. One way the Church handled the resulting problem of what was a Valid Reform and what was an attack was to apply Aristole's Rules of Logic to the Debate. If the attack fit under the Rules of Logic it was a Valid claim for Reform, if the Attack did not than the Church would look further to see if it was an attack on a Core Doctrine of the Church. Thus anything defendable under Aristole was a "safe harbor" but if you went to far from Aristole you run the Risk of being accused of attacking a Core Doctrine of the Church.

Now the Church had no problem with Copernicus's theory as theory, but if someone would state that theory was Fact, such a Theory as "Fact" had to be proved under Aristotle's Rules of Logic. One of Aristotle's rules of Logic was that facts that are explained by a theory does NOT prove that theory. Let me give some illustrations.

1. If you have Something (Such as a Theory), called "A", you also have the following observable facts "B", "C", "D", "E". Under Aristotle's rules of Logic the reverse is NOT true, i.e. merely having "B", "C", "D", "E", does not mean you have "A". This is because "B", "C", "D", "E", may be caused by something else other than "A".

2. Another way to look at this is if you have a Murder, you have a Dead Body, a method to kill a person, and a reason for someone to kill the dead body. But if you only have a Dead Body, a method to kill a body, and a reason for someone to kill the dead body that does mean you have a murder (For example in the case of an Accident, or death by Natural Causes, or even someone butchering his own cow).

With Galileo you now had a man of Science saying that you should adopt a rule (Copernicus's theory) that could NOT be proved by Aristotle's Rules of Logic (and in fact the adoption would have to contrary to Aristotle's Rules of Logic). The Church said no at that point, OK to be taught as a Theory but unless provable under Aristotle's Rules of Logic, not to be taught as FACT.

Now before Galileo used his telescope and saw the Moons of Jupiter, the previous Pope had Died and that Pope's Science Adviser had become Pope. He warned Galileo to of the above, but Galileo did not believe his old friend would do anything about it. When the Pope first censured Galileo. Galileo triked back with a book explaining the Theory AS FACT, and giving the Pope's favorite sayings when the Pope supported Science over what other priests called violations of Religious Dogma ("If that is the way it is, it is how God wanted it to be") to a fool.

The Pope could afford to leave a Friend teach something the Pope had told him not to teach, but the Pope (who was the MONARCH of the Papal States in addition to being the head of the Catholic Church) could not afford to permit a personal attack. Thus the Condemnation of Galileo (Whose punishment was to stay in his home in his old age). Galileo was prohibited from writing about Copernicus's theory unless any writing was first read by the Pope before Printing, but that is all. Copernicus's theory would not be condemned for another 50 years (and than only for a brief time period, and again permitted to be used to understand the rotation of the Stars, the Sun, the Moon and Even the Earth, so not much of a restriction).

Thus the problem was one of HOW Galileo presented his theory and the Church's fear that if the Church embraced it and later it proved to be false the problems that would occur (Please note Copernicus's theory was disproved within 50 years, Kempler's showed that the Plants go in elliptical orbits not circular orbits, it was to obtain perfect Circular orbits that Copernicus's had first proposed his theory, thus Copernicus's theory was "disproved" within 50 years. We may laugh at that "disapproval" but at that the time period the Church was afraid of even such disapproval as Kempler's. The Church did not want to have to undergo another attack from Science while it was Fighting the Protestant's Reformation (and the Church's Own Reformation).

[Socialist Dem]

4. Wow.....the leader of the Catholic Church

condemns use of religion for violence.....

:eyes:

[RedCloud]

5. Disbeliever of evolution!

He shall be turned into a dung beetle when the reincarnation comes through.

Religion still? Little wonder why space aliens don't visit.

[Stunster]

17. WTF are you talking about?

The pope has said that evolution is not a theory, it's a fact!

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/darwin.htm

I'm a 44-year-old Catholic, and even as a kid I knew that evolution and Catholicism were compatible. Even Saint Augustine knew that Genesis was not to be taken literally.

Catholics are not Biblical fundamentalists!

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Welcome to DU, Stunster!

:hi:

Unfortunately, you'll find that there are a certain number of ignorant, anti-Catholic assholes who post at DU. I've been calling them on it for years.

Check out the "Catholic" thread in the Religion & Theology Forum (under Non-Political Forums.)

Peace be with you.

[VegasWolf]

34. There are also a lot of people here that Catholicism didn't get their

claws into. But I can't complain. I got a great education,
the catholic girls were wild, and the collection box at Christ
the King was always handy when I needed money for dates!

[DemBones DemBones]

43. You're a real class act. eom

[alcuno]

48. Welcome to DU, Stunster! You tell 'em!

I'm a Catholic and have never heard ANYONE in the church say anything against evolution.

[QC]

51. Yeah, but mere facts must never get in the way of a good Christian-Bash!

n/t

[420inTN]

30. Space aliens do visit. n/t

[Catfight]

6. Then what will religions have to preach about if not violence, intolerance

and death? Maybe he should preach about not sexually abusing children to get their freak on in the name of God.

[jobycom]

10. Now that's not all they preach

It's just what they practice.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. He HAS preached against abusing children

and specifically against priests abusing children. Why don't you bigots ever listen?

[jobycom]

8. Ever wonder sometimes for just the briefest of moments whether

Sinead O'Connor was right?

Next up, Pope comdemns use of arbitrary church doctrine on abortion for influencing elections.

[chiffon]

9. Dear Fatha, Deliver us from evil...

Because thine is the kingdom that uses its power and only seeks glory for the comings and goings of thy lords!

Jesus friggin' Christ, gimme me a break!

BTW...I am a FORMER Catholic and don't wanta here any crap about my agnostic/atheist rant and sarcasm...done.

[Kahuna]

11. Too little, too late, as usual.

nt

[ydya]

12. Lets see....he says that

``No one has the right to present or use religion as an instrument of intolerance, as a means of aggression, of violence, of death,'' the pope told the group.

Yet, the credo he lives by and defends is "My God is the only God....Jesus is the only saviour.....If you dont join us you are going to hell". Hmmm. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and all the others are children of a lesser God, huh?

Great tolerance there Pope.

Also, notice he only refers to religion. Which is actually true and cool. Religion is personal, and is rarely used negatively.

Organized religion, on the other hand, is the single most divisive and murderous force through our sad history. Notice he doesnt say anything about using organized religion as a political and/or genocidal force.
Now send him 10% of your money and shut up.

[420inTN]

37. Organized Religion...

as with anything done by Man, gets fucked up. The teachings of Christ are great. It's the interpretations and implementation that get's screwed.

"Yet, the credo he lives by and defends is "My God is the only God....Jesus is the only saviour.....If you dont join us you are going to hell". Hmmm. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and all the others are children of a lesser God, huh?

Great tolerance there Pope."

The Pope's not the one doing the condemning.

While Pope John Paul has done a lot to improve the Church, and it's image, there is a lot more to be done. As a Catholic, I think that pedophile priests should be ex-communicated (or at the least stripped of their positions/priesthood) and remanded to local authorities for prosecution. Priests should also be allowed to marry (which would create an influx into the priesthood). Women should also be allowed to become priests if they desire. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus, did He say that priests could only be men nor could they marry. This has just been a practice to keep the property, power, and money within the Church.

I am Catholic, but have thought about changing to Episcopalian due to my disagreements with the Church.

[ydya]

44. Your first line IS my point. Religion should be personal. But when

somebody tells you their way is the best, politics is afoot. That's what I meant by "organized". If religious organization wasn't ultimately about power, you would not have different branches of any particular religion.
And by the way, anytime people support/espouse an ideology that their way is the only way (or else you go to hell), they are at best misguided. Implicit exclusionism is just as bad, maybe worse, than explicit exclusionism.

[420inTN]

49. I understood what you were saying...

I was just expounding upon it.

"And by the way, anytime people support/espouse an ideology that their way is the only way (or else you go to hell), they are at best misguided."

ummm.... so Jesus was misguided? (re: "The only way to the Father is through me.")


"Implicit exclusionism is just as bad, maybe worse, than explicit exclusionism.

Man doesn't exclude anyone from Heaven, but from his own actions. A bible-thumper can "condemn" you all that he wants. You won't go to Hell on his say-so.

My personal philosophy on religion, is thus: God gave us the ground rules, and He gave us free will. If we choose to follow the rules, we go to Heaven, else we go to Hell. God is the final arbiter of whether or not we get on the VIP list at the gates. It's fine for us to remind each other of the ground rules, but don't pretend that you have any veto power on the list.

[ydya]

53. Dude, I'm not the one pretending to have any veto power. You are.

I'm sorry, I didnt realize that Jesus personally told you that the only way to the Father (interesting that God is naturally male, and all the "Holy" books were written in male-dominated, fairly barbaric, times) was through him. I assumed you read it in a book somewhere, edited by people who also happened to be responsible for the crusades.

The fundamentalist Islamic beliefs (by the way, they say "Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his messenger) also has God giving them the ground rules ; which include assuring a place in heaven if they killed the "infidels". I guess you shouldn't have a problem with the Jihad then.

My point is that people, for a long time now, have been reading someone else's transcriptions/edits and interpretations of what they believed to be God's word. Just because someone claims their propoganda was older or newer than another's propaganda, doesn't make either propoganda correct.
It used to be perfectly Christian to kill people because they said that the earth was round. It was perfectly Christian to enslave human beings. It was perfectly Christian to deem women the inferior sex to the extent of their not having a say in governance. And beat them if they didnt obey a man's every command. And so on.
2000 year old truths are just as valid as 800 year old truths. And 2000 year old bullshit is just as much crap as 800 year old bullshit. The trick is in what any given person decides to belive to be truth or bullshit.
It is not about some ancient politician's interpretations about correct and wrong. It is simply about correct and wrong. And if you unshirkingly believe that one collectiion of propoganda is correct, you are no better than the other who believes that his different collection of propoganda is correct.

It is such unshirking belief without reason that leads to (and has historically led to) religion-based warfare.
So, to subscribe to any one such belief and then comment against using "religion" to divide people is hypocritical.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. He is preaching to the Muslims and the Jews, although I do not

know where the orthodox Christians come in. Obviously it is the Pope's sermon to them . So can one now, in the spirit of tolerance, expect to see women priests?

[wordout]

14. he's talking about falwell

-----------

FALWELL: I'd rather be killing them over there than fighting them over here, Jesse. And I think you would...

JACKSON: Let's stop the killing and choose peace. Let's choose negotiation over confrontation.

FALWELL: Well, I'm for that too. But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord.

-----------------------------

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/24/le.01.html

[leftchick]

15. so now will Catholics admit idiotboy* is NOT pro-life??

probably not, he is pro-fetus and that is all that seems to matter to many Catholics these days. :(

[goddess40]

18. he's not even pro-fetus

by allowing all the pollution to be spewed into our environment and not having health care available means he's only pro-controlling women and pro-getting anti-choice votes.

[leftchick]

21. very well said!

I know he does not care for any living thing save his sorry ass.

[kwolf68]

19. The Pope...what does he know

I'd much rather take my cues from real messengers of God---Pat Robotson and Dumbya.

[w4rma]

20. The Pope said that if Bush went into Iraq he "went without God".

But there are alot of whacked Catholic bishops and priests here in the U.S. who took the word of Bush and the word of the corporate media over the word of the Pope.

I think the Pope needs to use stronger language for these folks.

Of course I should also point out that there are ALOT of priests and bishops in the U.S. and especially around the world who listened to the Pope.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. SOME clergy and bishops, SOME, not

"a lot."

[alcuno]

45. Because of his illness, it's hard for the Holy Father to get his message

out. We always hear about the things that he says, but it would carry more weight if we heard him on video saying these things. That's not going to happen due to the grave impairment of his speech.

I heard someone make an excellent point about *'s visit to the Pope. The Holy Father actually took him to task, but * came out afterward and won the PR debate.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. From "My Fair Lady"

I can imagine the Pope, backed up by the College Of Cardinals (dressed as showgirls, of course) singing this lyric:

"I'd prefer a new edition
of the Spanish Inquisition,
than to ever let
a woman in my life."

[peterh]

23. Hmmm…that’s like bush saying I don’t have any attack plans on my desk…

Then the Bishops vote to join the Falwells of the country….actions speak louder than words….


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-catholic18nov18,1,4422297.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Roman Catholics to Join Hands With Evangelicals
Bishops vote to connect the two Christian faiths in an ecumenical alliance for first time


WASHINGTON — The nation's Roman Catholic bishops voted Wednesday to join a new alliance that would be the broadest Christian group ever formed in the United States, linking American evangelicals and Catholics in an ecumenical organization for the first time.

[BiggJawn]

24. "The way of Religions"?

I didn't quite understand that part. Was he saying that the "way of religion" is to use it "...as an instrument of intolerance, as a means of aggression, of violence, of death..."?

'cuz that's the way it's been ever since the first utterance of "My God's BETTER than YOUR god!"

[Aunt Anti-bush]

25. But if you're using it to con people into voting for an incompetent idiot.

Well, that's ok.

[DemBones DemBones]

38. The Vatican all but said Catholics should vote for Kerry.

But you bigots never listen.

[alcuno]

47. You are right. They did.

People here don't get it that it is American bishops, siding with fundamentalists, who went for *.

[420inTN]

29. Really? Gee, thanks Padre....

maybe your predecessors should have tried that about 900 years ago.

[alcuno]

46. Let it go.

The Catholic Church has apologized and learned much from its past. Get them for things they do now and not for things that happened 900 years ago.

[420inTN]

50. I have let it go.

The previous post was more wishful thinking than condemnation.

However, let us not forget the errors of the past, lest we repeat them. ;-)

[GetTheRightVote]

31. They are all probably going to hell anyway

Anyone who thinks that God is about this murdering race we are in over there in Iraq is a complete idiot. My God and the bible men wrote about him say to be your neighbors keeper, in other words you help them out in life and you are grateful to do so in his name. Where in the world did these other nut cases come from and what church should I not attend to stay well away from them ?? It obviously would not be safe to enter it.