Pope Said to Be Upset Muslims Offended...

[bridgit]

'(09-16) 06:51 PDT VATICAN CITY, (AP) --

Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets" that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday — stopping short of issuing an apology the Islamic world has demanded.

The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church regards Muslims with "esteem."

Thus, the pope "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 that Benedict gave during the German trip.'

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/16/international/i044413D64.DTL

[xchrom]

1. some apology.

i see it's the fault of the listener and not the fault of the ignorant sanctimonious son of a bitch who spoke them.

[zanne]

2. Are we sure he didn't grow up in Crawford? nt

[xchrom]

5. or in a mansion on the north atlantic seaboard --

and his german accent is phony?

wouldn't that be rich?

[zanne]

12. Or in Connecticut? nt

[xchrom]

21. ya know -- for the life of me -- i couldn't remember which state.

thanks.

[bridgit]

15. we all know that catholicism was responsible for some of thee most...

heinous world events on record, the rape of the natural world some 600-700 years ago, destruction of Mayan glyphs which would be helpful today as we understand more of what we may need to, and a host of other ill-conceived event sequence' since & current...the vatican under John Paul, however, who was a much more all-seeing pope imo, made an apology for those clearly destructive & hurtful activities on behalf of catholicism

that apology was made before the world, and took courage to admit that, "yes, we killed your tribal/ancestral grandparents for our religious beliefs.", and was as well & at that time, taken as less than sincere...

imo it is time for all religions, including islam, to cease & desist this crazy talk about killing people, any people, in the name of their 'god'

soon, islam will be thought as the contemporaneous inheritor of things that will in time require an apology, even if perhaps 600+ years hence

if there is any peace & light to be conveyed by way of gods & religions...let them be conveyed now, cause this life is, from the outset, clearly paper thin and already in need of repair

O8)

[xchrom]

22. i think we should hold consumerism and corporatism to the same

scrutiny.

part of what fuels fear of modernity is selective exclusion of the benefits of modernity.

i just want to add that to your thoughts.

[bridgit]

26. oh...completely agreed, corporatism is let way off the hook far too...

often imo and the consumerism & all mighty dollar that is it's religion you bet'cha

[libhill]

57. Peace and light

from religions? Not bloody likely.

[peteatomic]

67. Yes, thank you, and I agree. However, I think it is important to add

that in this matter, there is some very insightful points. For example, we can easily hold Catholic beliefs in question, and this is good-- because 1800 years of religio-philosophical debate is the sum of the Catholic experience today.

However, and the difference develops, is that the Catholic experience has questions, and Islamic tradition does not seem to have this ability. So, when Pope Benedict uses an ancient example of a belief about Islam in a history lesson-- the reaction is not ignored or even a passive one, it results in the fire bombing of two churches in Palestine (!)

If someone in the Islamic world would have made the same example regarding Christianity, would it be so violently opposed?

No, absolutely not, and because we generally welcome debate and rational argumentation around ideas.

This is yet another inheritance from the Catholic tradition.

[bridgit]

70. thank you for your post, peteatomic...

:-)

[peteatomic]

75. Thank you. We live in a country ignorant about Catholic history/tradition.

For non-Catholics, and many Catholics too, there is gross ignorance of history, philosophy, etc.

People often seize on their limited view of the present and ignore everything else, unfortunately.

Education & enlightenment will free enfeeblement. ;)

[Igel]

38. I'm waiting for a public apology from the mufti

in Mecca who said that Christianity was an inferior religion, and the early Christians wilfully corrupted their scriptures. I'm waiting for a public apology from the Muslim preacher who said that when Jesus returns he'll be a Muslim.

There's the pig in charge of Al-Azhar who also said derogatory statements about Judaism. I saw no riots. I see few complaints.

The three of them were ignorant santimonious sons of bitches, to borrow a phrase.

We're used to representatives of Islam saying offensive statements in Arabic; we like to think that when they say other things in English that's *all* they say. We look at preachers that *do* say the same decent things in both languages, and intentionally misgeneralizae. We're afraid of them for their pieceful tendencies. Or so insecure that we're afraid to actually challenge the imbeciles when they spout hate and violence and call them damned hypocritical supremacists. Then we might have to actually say something mean. We can't even stop to criticize the imams that so riled up their congregations on Friday that they went out and did acts of hate in the name of Allah. We decide that the over-sensitive sound-bite approach to reason is correct; screw several hundred years of Western thought, we have 1300 years of Islamic thought to emulate. No reason needed. Or expected.

Islam was spread largely by the sword. Once an area was conquered, the legal and tax system made converting to Islam the only rational response to an unjust and intolerant system. Most areas under Islam were usually better for religious minorities than the worst areas under Christianity were at times. That's not saying much; most areas under Christianity were usually better for religious minorities than the worst areas under Islam were at times.

Christianity's gone where a reasoned investigation of its history leads, and mostly cleaned up its act. Islam has decided that any attempt to examine its butt crack is offensive and attempt to smear it. There's already plenty smeared there; an examination might allow it to be cleaned up.

[xchrom]

41. there are a lot of ignorant son of a bitches strewn about all over.

if it hadn't been for islam -- those who practice christianity would STILL be crawling around through the muck in search of algebra.

and i'm christian.

seems to me that those who follow the guy who said that if someone would steal your cloak -- give him your coat also should fuckin know better.

but obviously christian/western ignorance isn't bound up by a constipated bush alone -- plenty of of constipated western exceptionalists every where on some ''liberal''/''progressive'' web sites as well.

[Igel]

49. That's not necessarily true.

Ponder what Byzantium would be doing in 650 AD without Islam. Probably what it was doing before its war with Persia.

Reestablishing order in Europe.

My guess, without Islam the Enlightenment would have occurred hundreds of years earlier. Fighting off the Huns wouldn't have happened so far west in Europe; odds are the Mongols wouldn't have gotten so far without the Muslim depradations that ravaged Kievan Rus'.

So much misery, and we're expected to be grateful for it.

[xchrom]

59. imagine first nations people without manifest destiny

or jewish history without christian bigotry?

we're expected to be thoughtful and intelligent -- not stupefying ingrates who believe in the mutant ideology of cultural speriority.

[Euphen]

85. Your history is a bit off.

Justinian's attempts to reconquer the west caused more destruction to Europe than the fall of the western empire, in addition to leaving his empire poor and open to invasion. Anyway, Byzantium in 650 was in a state of near collapse, which is why the Arabs were able to defeat it so easily, and intellectually had been in a dark age since the third century. Without Islam the enlightenment may not have occured at all.

[ContraBass Black]

58. When was the last time you heard any public figure say

"I'm sorry I said that" instead of "I'm sorry you didn't like that?"

[xchrom]

86. lol -- indeed.

of course that also implies that no one is listening to what is being said.

you have to wonder if they are ever surprised?

[Kali]

3. oooooo one religion is "offended" by another!

Color me shocked. Let's start a war, maybe we can scam some land or resources out of it while we "prove" our god is a bigger bad-ass.

[bridgit]

16. correct, neither is blameless...

[MADem]

23. There you have it. Let's fight over whose invisible god is the best!!

And let us also fight about which group worships said invisible god in the most appropriate manner!!!

[valerief]

4. Pope Macaca will probably hold a Religionfest Rally. n/t

[acmavm]

6. He can't apologize. He's infallible, don't ya know.

That's what I was told during all the years of catechism and religion in school anyway.

[cgrindley]

7. You should have paid more attention in Sunday school

There is a difference between an ex cathedra statement and everything else the Pope may or may not say.

[zanne]

10. When you're an eight year-old Catholic school kid...

You believe your catechism, and it tells you that the Pope is infallible in matters of religion. Period.

[cgrindley]

43. No it doesn't

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

[zanne]

46. Well, that sure wasn't my catechism...

Did you read the part where I said "eight year-old Catholic School student"?

[acmavm]

36. Who's to say I didn't pay attention? You? Who are you and where do

you get your powers of infalliblity (and clairvoyance) from?

Going to a private Catholic girl's boarding school we were immersed in matters of religion 24/7 (to coin a trite and overused phrase). I lived with nuns, went to Mass every morning, and spent every Wednesday night with them for 'family night'.

I know what I was told during grade school and high school. Not that I believed it, but it was a way of life. The Pope is God's representative on earth. Nothing he can say or do is wrong.

Your experience might have been different, but there are untold numbers of people like me who were raised that way. Some even still believe it. And I suspect that this Pope does as well.

[cgrindley]

42. I am. Yes. I am me and I

get my powers of infallibility by supposing that if you born Catholic and educated by Catholics--and I believe that you have just confessed that you were "immersed in matters of religion 24/7--that you would have been exposed to what is an extraordinarily basic Catholic theology. I'm sorry that either your school was incompetent or you didn't pay attention. Popes almost never claim to be speaking ex cathedra. A case can be made that even Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not ex cathedra. Ratzinger certainly does not believe that all of his statements are infallible. Matter of fact, the following criteria must be met for a statement to be infallible (from wikipedia):

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.)
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that it is definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly. In this case, the previous fallible teachings are immediately made void.

So I somehow doubt that Ratzinger would go prancing around the Vatican prefacing everything he said with the magic formula of infallibility.

[acmavm]

45. Best advice I'm going to give you is to get quit seeing movies like

the Exorcist or the Omen.

You've seen too damn many.

[Breeze54]

71. Infallibility is not the absence of sin.

Papal Infallibility

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).


Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.

In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts:
John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "),
Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"),
and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.


Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general. <--snip

Read on....

I was also brought up Catholic and I was pretty much taught that the Pope can do no wrong...
But when we mature, we all know from history, that that isn't always true, although most
practicing Catholics believe that.

[donco6]

60. While that's true . . .

it doesn't erase the fact that the Pope is a world figure, and as such bears a lot of responsibility for whatever he says, ex cathedra or not.

On the other hand, using his words as an excuse to burn down Christian churches in the West Bank is not cool either.

Frankly, I think the world could do better with less religion altogether.

[cgrindley]

73. Agreed

Let's have a beer.

[donco6]

77. Cool!

:toast:

[zanne]

9. Exactly!

I wish I had that setup.

[ananda]

11. In the church, infallibility..

.. applies only to matters of faith and morals,

.. not to anything a pope like Maledict might say.

Anyway, while reading A Canticle for Liebowitz,
I came across the idea that infallible really means
-indisputable-.

Interesting the ways of authority figures and their
adulation these days.

[acmavm]

35. Really? That's not the way I heard it. He is God's representative on

earth therefore his judgement is not to be questioned. The pope's 'humanity' had very little to do with his position in the church and his authority in this world. You did not question his words. Ever.

[cgrindley]

48. But that's just not true, not now and not ever

The doctrine of infallibility requires some very specific requirements to be met. No one. Absolutely no one thinks that the Pope is always infallible. It has to be a formal ex cathedra statement.

[peteatomic]

51. ..and it is not only from the Pope as an individual, but as a sum

of the opinion of the leadership of the Church.

[Breeze54]

74. Yeah and

my parents and the nuns told me sex was bad too! :crazy:

But that didn't stop me! :rofl: Nor did I believe everything they said!

You're just remembering the scare tactics Catholic schools used/use...

Always Question Authority!! ;)

[rrasile]

14. Religion

So what's the problem the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church regards Muslims with "esteem." Maybe the Islamic people turn away from real history and never want their people to read the truth.
I'll bet those guys that flood the airwaves with their bullshit will take the middle of the road on this problem. Religion is so easy when all you need to talk about is queers, same sex marriages and what kind of beer you used to drink before you met God and saw the light.

[Warpy]

8. It's still "my way or the highway"

That's the problem with these monotheistic religions, they all claim to own the only true god in the universe.

I just can't relate to that degree of naked egotism.

[Joe Bacon]

13. Same old hot air from the same old source

Isn't is nice to see such compassion oozing out of this old fart?

[bridgit]

17. i miss John Paul, he was nice...

[AngryAmish]

18. The contempt for the Pope is shocking

He quoted an emporer who said it was wrong to spread religion by the sword. So some Muslims get mad and act violently. Doesn't that say so much more about the folks who get mad and act violently for their religion than the person who said that they do?

It is wrong to condemn the Pope and not condemn the nutbags who cannot take any criticism of their religion without going apeshit.

[niyad]

19. some of us hate maledict for his stance on hiding the pedophiles in the

church. as an ex-communicated rc, I can be as contemptuous as I want, and, quite frankly, so can everyone else.
Perhaps it is time to remind people of the deafening silence from the Vatican during WWII?

[bridgit]

20. i think that's right, i think there are clearly tenets within each...

that are not tenable, they fall purely within matters of faith, or faith in myth & mysticism; but for islam to become enraged as to mention pointing out they're own hypocrisy is specious at best. catholicism becoming enraged likewise also specious. judaism becoming enraged likewise also specious. hinduism becoming enraged likewise also specious. 'fill in the blank religion' becoming enraged likewise also specious.

grinding on the pope imo only speaks to myopia

[MADem]

24. I think the actions of those angry at him have been glossed over

(the nitwits who tried to molotov the churches in Palestine in response to this brouhaha, for example) BECAUSE of the pedophelia thing--it's the old "two wrongs make a right" school--see, the Pope must be "punished" ergo it is "OK" to stand back and watch him get his ass whipped unjustifiably. And because he "deserves" it, there's no need to also punish the badly behaved deliverer of the asswhipping, no matter how nasty they get.

You nailed the argument quite succinctly. Just because the Pope's church hasn't been a perfect example of piety is no excuse for other religions to behave equally badly. And to make matters worse, they didn't really even listen to the guy. He was quoting some asshole who's been dead for eons, not speaking extemporaneously.

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Far as I'm concerned, the pope threw those bombs.

A public figure who should know better inflames people with predictable results. Are you going to blame the shoeless illiterates who actually tossed the cocktails, or the world leader who started the fight?

[bridgit]

29. "The Pope, quoting a 15th-century Byzantine emperor, told his audience...

"...at the University of Regensburg: "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."

He used the words to illustrate that violence is contrary to the nature of God. Vatican officials insisted he meant no disrespect to Muslims and that the quotation was taken out of context. But the defence failed to mute Muslim anger." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060916.POPE16/TPStory

[Jed Dilligan]

32. "Evil and inhuman"

The unreformed Nazi bastard knew exactly what he was doing.

[BrklynLiberal]

56. What the hell did he bring up that quote for if not to incite anger and

divisiveness. He is cut from the same cloth as Dimson.

[bridgit]

62. dunno, perhaps he was trying to suggest a return to spiritual pursuits...

but got his head stuck up his poofy, perfumed dumb-ass in the trying :rofl: it doesn't take allot to incite islam these days, he could have cast 90% of his 3x5 cards into the blustery winds of war and accomplished the same result x(

[AngryAmish]

30. The shoeless illiterates

You may have contempt for those folks, but they are actually human beings who are responsible for their behavior.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. The pope is worse.

He has a privileged position and uses it to be just as bad as they are.

[MADem]

31. He is the head cheerleader of his religion

He was giving an acadamic talk at a university, not addressing an interfaith gathering at a masjid.

I actually read his entire speech, word for word, and I think this is a tempest in a teapot. What religious leader doesn't say, to an audience of like-minded people, that THEIR religion is the best? Hell, that's the guy's JOB.

I've heard ayatullahs and imams say much, much worse. And I refuse to get overly excited over an argument about invisible deities that was postulated by some Emperor who has been dead for eons.

As for "shoeless illiterates" you won't find many of those in Palestine. They may be poor, they may be challenged to get their kids to school every day due to violence, but they are a highly literate society. And as for shoeless, I doubt that too. Muslims will wear shoes outside, even if they are crappy plastic ones. The shoes only come off when you cross the threshhold into the home.

[CarlVK]

50. Amen.

A public figure cannot lob knowingly incendiary rhetoric like that out there and then sit back innocently when things blow up.

I expect that sort of behavior from a rethug, but not from one of the most traditionally honored "voices of peace" in the world.

[peteatomic]

52. The Pope was not equating what Manuel II Paleologus said with

modern Islam. If you read the transcript of the speech, the Pope was giving a history lecture on the medieval church and its relation with Islam.

[Jed Dilligan]

81. Well, by that logic I can get away with an awful lot.

Thanks for the license... I will use it freely.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

25. CORRECT

well said

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kali]

34. They are all nutbags, including him and I "condemn" them all.

[CarlVK]

40. Oh, hiding behind quotation marks? Nice try.

Maybe next he can quote a bunch of Adolf Hitler and be "safe" from criticism I presume?

[peteatomic]

53. Yes, exactly. Especially when he was holding a history lesson.

Furthermore, this story is exposing those people with real anti-Catholic misinterpretation. It's really quite amazing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Put a condom in it, Benny. He's as medieval as his words.

The same guy who condemns millions to death by banning condoms and birth control to the poorest of the poor.

[CarlVK]

39. "stopping short of an apology"??

That figures, doesn't it. God forbid that he actually take some responsibility and apologize for his stupid, insensitive and inflammatory remarks.

It's crap like he spewed that makes more MODERATE Muslism start to think that Islamic radicals may actually have a point. Thanks a bunch, Pope Hitlerjugend.

[Strawman]

44. This is an overreaction. But ask why did that overreaction happen?

As I understand it, he was reading from some medieval text, not endorsing it's contents verbatim. There are plenty of good reasons to be critical of this pope. This isn't one, IMO.

But I do think it's symptomatic of how little credibility Western leaders have in the Islamic world (especially conservative ones) and we should ask ourselves why that is. If someone says the Pope said Islam is evil, people in that part of the world are probably inclined to believe it because we have a President who talked about a "crusade" (before he realized how stupid that was) and an "Axis of Evil." Bombing the shit out of them and turning countries over there into rubble doesn't exactly help build trust between the West and people in Islamic nations.

We'll never hear any of that. Just about how the "Islamofascists" used this to whip their people into a frenzy and how Arab and Muslim regimes use stuff like this to distract the public from their own tyranny and corruption. There is some truth to that, but our leaders and opinion elites will never acknowledge the other truth about why people in the Middle East might have empirically sound reasons to think that Western leaders are a bunch of nuts who hate them and want to kill them. It's a mirror reflection of our own mass anxiety about them.

[JVS]

47. They upset the Pope by being outraged! I demand they apologize to the Pope

:crazy:

[Disturbed]

55. "violence is contrary to the nature of God."

A reading of the bible will show that statement is absurdly false.

The god of the Old Testament was extremely violent and vengeful. Yaweh was the God of War.

[BrklynLiberal]

54. The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Conquest of the *Aztecs & the Incas,

and that is only what comes to mind immediately
For a religion that condemns the spreading of religion by the sword, the Catholic Church has sure done a lot of it throughout history.


*Thank you Bucky

[Disturbed]

61. The Pope didn't anticipate a negative reaction to this?

Nobody that checked this speech brought up the possibility that the statement, even though a history lesson would be real upset by it? Are these people dumb? Also possible that nobody hear or read the speech before he gave it? If so, he just isn't real bright.

[peteatomic]

63. You forgot universities, the rule of law, charity, universal public

education, and the transmission of ancient knowledge to the modern day, amongst many other things.

These come to mind. When it comes to the development of the modern world, the Catholic church has sure done alot throughout history.

[bridgit]

65. welcome to du, peteatomic...

:hi: :kick:

[peteatomic]

76. Thanks--

I categorize myself as being a Catholic, pro-Wellstone democrat..alongst side other things...

[BrklynLiberal]

69. Universal Public Education? Is that FREE, Non-Secular Education

or Private education including religious instruction, for tuition?

Laws and charities that abided FIRST and FOREMOST by the laws of the church.

Transmission of what ancient knowledge that was not first filtered and edited by those in the Church who made judgments on what part of that information was actually "the truth"?

[peteatomic]

72. The rise of liberal education: the teaching of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato.

and as much information that could be saved after the such things like the destruction of the great library of Alexandria-- Pliny the Elder & Younger, Tacitus, Homer, etc.etc.etc. too many to post.
..and we only have maybe 15% of what has remained from wars, fires, any types of calamity.

2) Charity: the laws of the Church have helped the poor and unfortunate from time immemorial. Indeed, the largest private charity in the U.S. today is Catholic charities, and the only real welfare net in central and south America is the Church.

3) Transmission of knowledge: interesting that the Church kept great non-Christian thinkers which are the basis of modern society in enough regard to keep them.

4) the 'Truth': always up for debate.

You should read St. Thomas Aquinas.

[BrklynLiberal]

78. by several sources....the library at Alexandria was not saved by the

church, but destroyed by it..

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/history/library_alexandria.html

Finally, note this paragraph from Matthew Battles's book, Library: An Unquiet History (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), p. 24,32: "The libraries were surely in decline under Christians who, following their triumph over pagans, Jews, and Neoplatonists, found the Hellenic riches of the libraries discomfiting. Their anger reached a fever pitch in the fourth century A.D.: Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, desired the site of the temple of Serapis for a church; he set loose a mob of Christians, who destroyed the pagan temple, and perhaps, the books of its library as well...The libraries of Alexandria probably shared a modest fate, moldering slowly through the centuries as people grew indifferent and even hostile to their contents. Ancient Greek, never a linguistic monolith in any case, became incomprehensible to Alexandrians of the Christian era with their mixture of Coptic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Koine, or demotic Greek. Ignored by the generations to whom they were indecipherable, the scrolls would have been damaged...stolen, lost, and yes, burned. They were replaced by writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the church and by the thinning literature of the declining Roman world."

http://www.answers.com/topic/library-of-alexandria

The museum and library were destroyed in civil war in the late 3rd century AD; a subsidiary library was destroyed by Christians in AD 391.

http://www.crystalinks.com/libraryofalexandria.html

Destruction of the pagan temples by Theophilus

In the late 4th century, persecution of pagans by Christians had reached new levels of intensity. Temples and statues were destroyed throughout the Roman Empire, pagan rituals forbidden under punishment of death, and libraries closed. In 391, Emperor Theodosius ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria:

"Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict between the Pagans and Christians. At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt.

"And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum.

"Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for the relief of the poor.

"All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.'"

http://ehistory.osu.edu/World/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9

The second story of the Library's destruction is more popular, thanks primarily to Edward Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". But the story is also a tad more complex. Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD. During his reign the Temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian Church (probably around 391 AD) and it is likely that many documents were destroyed then. The Temple of Serapis was estimated to hold about ten percent of the overall Library of Alexandria's holdings. After his death, his nephew Cyril became Patriarch. Shortly after that, riots broke out when Hierax, a Christian monk, was publicly killed by order of Orestes the city Prefect. Orestes was said to be under the influence of Hypatia, a female philosopher and daughter of the "last member of the Library of Alexandria". Although it should be noted that some count Hypatia herself as the last Head Librarian.

Alexandria had long been known for it's violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

Some regard the death of Hypatia as the final destruction of the Library. Others blame Theophilus for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a Christian church. Still others have confused both incidents and blamed Theophilus for simultaneously murdering Hypatia and destroying the Library though it is obvious Theophilus died sometime prior to Hypatia.

Perhaps you might try reading some historians that are not part of the church establishment.

[peteatomic]

82. I agree. There have been destruction of knowledge that should have

probably been kept. This is terrible. It's amazing that so much has survived.

[BrklynLiberal]

79. It was not the Church, but perhaps a couple of men who saved Ancient Greek

Philosophy from being lost forever...perhaps, once again, using that "filter" for which the Church is so famous.

http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/20daniels.htm

The history of the study of Ancient Philosophy is itself interesting, and enables us to put modern scholarship in its context. We will only consider Western Europe, as inclusion of Byzantium and the Muslim world would, again, take too much space. In the late Roman period, the study of Aristotle went out of vogue as Christianity became increasingly dominant; Aristotle's arguments for the eternity of the world and the demise of our souls after death fitted in poorly with Christian notions of creation and paradise. Fortunately, Aristotle's logic was saved for the West by the Christian Roman aristocrat Boethius, while in Africa St Augustine of Hippo transmogrified Plato into something Catholic and Orthodox and respectable! In the 1200s Aristotle's ideas started wafting westwards once more and St Thomas Aquinas made them more palatable for Catholicism - although 5 years after Aquinas' death in 1274, many of Aristotle's conclusions were declared heretical by the Bishop of Paris. The Renaissance saw much interest in the debate between the 'Ancients' and the 'Moderns' in Italy and the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus and the Stoics came to life yet again. But the understanding people had of their ideas was quite different to that which we hold today. For example, Plato was held to have written all his works motivated by a single coherent philosophy. The realization that this wasn't necessarily so probably started with Leibniz. Most experts now see a progression in Plato's thinking from his early dialogues (such as the Euthyphro), which closely followed Socrates' philosophy, through the growth of Plato's own ideas in in his middle dialogues (such as The Republic) to their refinement in his later dialogues (e.g. The Sophist).

[peteatomic]

83. Good article.

[BrklynLiberal]

80. The paternalistic, condescending attitude that the church has had

toward Central and South America ever since the Pope split them between Spain and Portugal has really benefitted all the natives of those countries. Right.
They have lost their native religions, native languages, natives lands. They cannot use birth control to limit their families and feel compelled to contribute a portion of their meager earnings to a Church that is worth billions.
There are individuals who do good for these people. There have been nuns and priests who sacrifice, and teach, and offer medical support...but the Church itself does nothing but take advantage and count the souls of these people like a rancher counts head of cattle.
The Pope and the Vatican have never looked upon South and Central America as anything more than an investment in future souls.

[peteatomic]

84. The Church is the only organized system attempting to help the poor in

Central & South America. The alternative are often dictators sponsored by U.S. or other powers.

[bridgit]

64. see post #15...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2150272&mesg_id=2150408

[Bucky]

66. Not the Mayans, the Aztecs. The conquistadors never met the Mayans

which is a shame, because I think great Mayans think alike.

[BrklynLiberal]

68. oops. Sorry 'bout that. I was close, but no cigar. Thanks for the

correction.

[peteatomic]

87. Do you know how brutal these Aztec & Mayan Empires were?

They weren't particularily enlightened people-- O.K., in the field of engineering perhaps, but in regards to human rights-- absolutely not.

[BrklynLiberal]

88. I see, so since Saddam Hussein was a cruel despot, that justified

the invasion of Iraq and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Any culture that conflicts with your beliefs is expendable.

The Inquisition was not brutal, of course.
check it out:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/history/persecution/inquisition_victims_auto_da_fe.htm

I am sure that Joan of Arc did not consider being burned alive too brutal.