What will be the reaction to this? No one would be surprised if there were more riots, but maybe there won't be. One thing is certain: this will do nothing to bring about reconsideration of the entrenched system of institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims that is the dhimma -- and which is rooted in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
By Riazat Butt in The Guardian (thanks to Bigcatgirl):
Muslims must respect people of all faiths and not exclude them on the grounds of religion, race or any other personal characteristic, a senior Vatican official said this week. In a message to celebrate Eid al-Fitr, the festival marking the end of Ramadan, the Pope's interfaith expert has called for a "culture of peace and solidarity" between different religious communities and to spread a teaching "which honours all human creatures".Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, the newly-appointed president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the Vatican's main liaison agency with the Muslim world, has previously expressed concern about the treatment of Christians in Muslim-majority countries.
In one interview he highlighted the "extreme" case of Saudi Arabia where freedom of religion was "violated absolutely" with "no Christian churches and a ban on celebrating Mass, even in a private home".
The cardinal's Eid greeting does not single out Muslims for criticism - his appeals are aimed at "religious believers" - nor does he make a direct link between Islam and violence.
Instead, he described it as the duty of believers to "reject, denounce and refuse every recourse to violence, which can never be motivated by religion, since it wounds the very image of God in man.
"Violence, especially terrorism which strikes blindly and claims countless innocent victims, is incapable of resolving conflicts and leads only to a deadly chain of destructive hatred," he said.
"Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, the newly-appointed president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the Vatican's main liaison agency with the Muslim world, has previously expressed concern about the treatment of Christians in Muslim-majority countries."
....Just imagine how the ever dwindling Christians in those countries are concerned about the treatment they are receiving....
"Instead, he described it as the duty of believers to "reject, denounce and refuse every recourse to violence, which can never be motivated by religion, since it wounds the very image of God in man."
Unless of course you have a God of War...
"In a message to celebrate Eid al-Fitr, the festival marking the end of Ramadan, the Pope's interfaith expert has called for a 'culture of peace and solidarity' between different religious communities and to spread a teaching 'which honours all human creatures.'"
-- from the article above
Since when does the Vatican offer a mesage to "celebrate Eid al-Fitr"? Is this a new thing, and is it being done in a spirit to win Muslim hearts and minds? If so, it won't work.
If, on the other hand, it is being done in order to use such a "message" to attempt a message of peace and tolerance and interfaith suchlike, well then...it won't work.
"Since when does the Vatican offer a mesage to "celebrate Eid al-Fitr"? Is this a new thing, and is it being done in a spirit to win Muslim hearts and minds?
----------------------------------
The Holy See has sent greetings and messages to the various people of the world on their holidays for centuries. This has never been seen as an endorsement of any particular celebration but rather is the in the spirit of Christ giving blessing to all peoples. The Vatican sends a greeting to the United States on July 4 and to Mexico on September 16, the day those countries celebrate their independence, even though these are not Christian holidays.
In the same spirit, the Vatican sends a message of peace to the world's Buddhists on Visakha and even greetings to the world's Lutherans on October 31 "Reformation Day" even though this holiday could be seen as specifically anti-Catholic. Often on this day the Vatican would appeal for the separated Lutheran brethren to return to Christian unity.
Pius XII even sent greetings to the Soviet Union on thier celebration of the October Revolution with diplomatic but firm rejoinders against the atheist persecution of Russia's Christians. It is in this same spirit that greetings are sent on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr.
It is in this same spirit
And I send my greetings to the celebrators of Eid al-Fitr.
Pig out, boys!
This certainly has a tone of admonishment to Islamic persecution of other religions.
Of course, people are going to criticize it for not being harsh enough, or perhaps that it does no good.
Then again, the same critics would complain if the Vatican said nothing at all.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Ramadan has come and gone already? The peaceful ones must have been exhausted this year-no rioting on a wide scale to "celebrate". What a shocking (but welcome) development!
Eid al-Fitr will come around October 13 this year.
"The cardinal's Eid greeting does not single out Muslims for criticism"....from headline.
Yeah, but we ALL know who he's talking about.
A Google News search for "Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran" gets only two hits for this story. The Canadian Press (the Canadian equivalent to The Associated Press) ran it on Sept. 28.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijQD6jsTSembdgrBQlnWFbSr9mSA
Adding "Ramadan" to the search shows the story ran in only a few Canadian newspapers and in the New York Daily News. I also found it at what appears to be a blog for Moroccans in Holland: http://www.maroc.nl/forums/showthread.php?threadid=229627
I don't imagine there will be much Muslim reaction to this story, unless it got far bigger play in the non-English speaking world.
"Of course, people are going to criticize it for not being harsh enough, or perhaps that it does no good.
Then again, the same critics would complain if the Vatican said nothing at all."
-- from a posting above
Why do you maintain that? If I am meant to be included among "those same critics" I wouldn't complain a bit if the Vatican failed to send a message to the world's Muslims on Eid al-Fitr, or at any other time. And I do not think, as another poster suggests, that this is a centuries-old custom. I think it is quite recent in origin, certainly within the last few decades if not sooner. When it comes to Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism (is there a greeting from the Vatican to the world's Hindus?), one is dealing with faiths that do not have world-dominating pretensions, and that do not pose a threat, as Islam so clearly does but perhaps, when the practice of greetings on Eid al-Fitr was begun, the islamochristian lobby in the Vatican, from some representatives of Arab Christians, was stronger than, thankfully, it is now, and the desire to appease the world's Muslims also still seen as possible, and as making some kind of sense.
Now, with a Pope who keenly understands the problem of Islam, it may be thought impolitic to do away with a practice whose disappearance would be commented on. In the same way, will Bush's successor be able to end his misguided and dangerous practice of these White House Iftar dinners -- or will it simply be downgraded, with an Iftar dinner held but without presidential participation, or will some other way out be found, or will Bush have left that, too, as part of his woeful legacy on fighting what he continues idiotically to call a "war on terror"?
Tolerance, as shown by the Vatican (or, for that matter, anyone else), for a creed like Islam that is intolerant at its basic core, does no one any good.
"... reject, denounce, and refuse every recourse to violence..."
Hey, pal, DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.
Asking those who follow the religion of perpetual inflammation to treat non-believers kindly is like lecturing a pig on nuclear physics. It only annoys the pig and lecturer wastes his time.
"I do not think, as another poster suggests, that this is a centuries-old custom. I think it is quite recent in origin, certainly within the last few decades if not sooner."
-----------------------------------
The greetings to Buddhists are more recent because there was little contact before the mid-twentieth century. I don't know about Hindus. However, for centuries there has been diplomatic contact and exchange of official niceties for centuries. The Papal states exchanged ambassadors with the Ottoman Caliph and even negotiated treaties regarding the status of Christians in Palestine and Syria. Even earlier, the ambassador that Charlemagne sent to the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid was a bishop, charged with representing the pope as well as the Western Roman Emperor.
Don't ever forget that the Vatican is also the Holy See, a soveriegn independent nation with a foriegn policy. Diplomatic protocol and greetings are an essential part of this function, not only with nations but also with cultures, societies and, yes, other religions. The Pope is charged with representing the Kingdom of Christ on earth, this means dealing with the powers that are, not as we wish them to be.
There wouldn't be a "War On Terror" if there wasn't a War On The West.
Still, Hugh is quite correct, the term "War on Terror" is a dangerously inadequate misnomer. What would people have said if, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, FDR has declared a "War on Surprise Attacks?"
We should be just as critical as his contemporaries would have been.
The Vatican's message, issued at a time significant to Moslems, is a rebuke no matter how softly it may have been issued. It is entirely apropos that such a message exhorting Moslems to practice tolerance be issued on a holiday in which they celebrate the revelation of the book that legitimizes so much misery in the world. It vies for the attention of those who would otherwise be all too busy congratulating themselves in their wonderful religion and sends a competing message: "All is not right with the world and particularly your vision of it." Many Moslems will not like the message. Many will not even pay attention. But there may be some who will consider these words.
Respect. Would you please put your neck on the chopping block and I will make it quick and painless.
Is that the respect we can expect from the "religion of peace"?
I am just simply suprised that the Vatican has called upon Muslims to respect other faiths. I guess they are trying the honey method instead of the vinager method, trying to make important messages to Muslims about the NEED to treat non-Muslims a lot more respectful. Let's see if this method works.
muslims have no respect for themselves, how in God's name can they respect anyone else. They worship a pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a liar, a cheat. Not much honor in being a muslim. More like a gang of thieves or baby rapers banding together.
"respect for all faiths"... a short time after the Vatican reinstated the prayer including reference to "the perfidious Jews" and calls for their conversion.
The Vatican is as vacillating, pathetic and irrelevant as the U.N.
US_infidel:
Grow up.
You know nothing about history or the Church.
And as a Catholic I find you offensive and moronic. Keep your stupid remarks to yourself, particularly when they reveal how ignorant you are.
"respect for all faiths"... a short time after the Vatican reinstated the prayer including reference to "the perfidious Jews" and calls for their conversion.
The Vatican is as vacillating, pathetic and irrelevant as the U.N."
-- from a poster above
The poster is wrong on two counts.
First, he is wrong about the Latin mass. Before the recent change, the Latin mass required a special indult from the bishop. Now it will no longer require such special indult, but can be said by a priest whenever he wants to, in private, and publicly, in a church, the Latin mass can be offered when a sufficient number of parishioners request it. If the priest still refuses, those who requested the Latin mass may now appeal to the local bishop, and if he does not provide that Latin mass, those parishioners can then complain to the Vatican.
The ordinary form of the Roman mass thus, may in some places be replaced by the Latin, or what is called the extraordinary form of the Roman rite.
The stuff about the "perfidi Iudaei" in the Good Friday service was rightly changed by Pope John back in 1962. It is that 1962, already-emended Roman missal, which will remain for the Latin mass. Many people seem to be confused and worried by the re-introduciton of the Latin mass. They shouldn't be. In fact, a little distance, a little mystery, is called for, and there are aesthetic and other reasons, even geopolitical ones, for welcoming the possible return, here and there, of the Latin mass.
Nor can one call the Vatican at this moment in history, with this particular Pope, either "vacillating" or "pathetic" or "irrelevant." The single most important religious figure who recognizes, and has repeatedly articulated, the threat that Islam poses to the survival of the West (and not only to the survival of Christianity or of Catholicism) is Pope Benedict. No other religious leader has, so far, come close. The World Council of Churches? Don't be silly. Orthodox, or even Conservative rabbis? Again, mostly silence though, at least by comparison with the W.C.C., no apologetics on behalf of Islam.
Why should the salutary role of the Pope in this matter not be recognized? If there are differences among Christians, and differences among Popes, why not, when a Pope who has been thinking and writing the very things one would wish him to think and to write, not be supported?
Besides, the Vatican is not "irrelevant" nor "pathetic" but still powerful; a billion Catholics, and others -- including some devote atheists I could name -- are intensely interested in seeing that the Vatican comes down on the right side of the matter of Islam, because they recognize just how "relevant" it is, and can be.
But the U.N., alas, is also not "irrelevant" and also, alas, does not "vacillate." No, the U.N. is taken seriously by all kinds of people who do not know better -- mostly outside the United States, where the U.N. is properly despised. And instead of "vacillating" the U.N. can be counted on to promote or protect Islam, for long ago representatives of the Islamintern International slithered into positions of power in the U.N.'s bureaucracy, and the only bloc that now exists is the Muslim bloc, or Arab-Muslim bloc, that can be counted on to organize, usually quite successfully, for every occasion, and to distract the U.N. from any real action on most things to the question which preoccupies the Arabs and Muslims: that of the Mighty Empire of Israel, that practically contains by now the entire Middle East and North Africa, and any day now will be incorporating all of Afghanistan and Pakistan and maybe even Bangladesh into its borders.
Perhaps a certain "atheling" who finds me unbrief and therefore unwitty, will concede that, at times, I have my points -- because I know how to make them.
"The Pope is charged with representing the Kingdom of Christ on earth, this means dealing with the powers that are, not as we wish them to be."
- from post by Provoslavni above
There are a variety of methods the Holy See could employ for “dealing with” the Islamic world and it is reasonable to question the efficacy of the methods chosen. Robert Spencer’s point, that the method employed by Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran will not bring about the desired effect, precisely because the actions deplored by Tauran are explicitly sanctioned by the tenets of Islam, is one the Vatican should take seriously.
Remember that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue is a recent creation, established in the wake of the Second Vatican Council and of the publication of “Nostra Aetate,” a document that views Islam with rose-colored glasses and that urges Catholics and Muslims to “forget the past” – past quarrels and hostilities. This is a position that, in effect, asks Catholics to forget the root cause of such hostilities, namely an implacable belief that violence and discrimination against non-Muslims is the will of God.
So the Holy See in a bind. Its diplomatic methods re: Islam will prove ineffective, yet the Holy See is practically (though not doctrinally) bound to this approach because bound by an ethos that refuses to acknowledge the intrinsically violent and supremacist nature of Islam. (Pace Hugh, the Pope does NOT see Islam per se as a threat, only what he sees as aberrations of it - aberrations that dialogue can somehow overcome). As Muslim aggression continues, the Holy See may be forced to rethink its approach and consider other diplomatic methods.
But why wait until things get worse? I humbly suggest the Holy See go back a few years prior to Vatican II (heaven forbid!) and appropriate the more cautious and realistic approach employed by Pius XII towards the Nazi regime, a diplomatic approach that had the advantage of fully acknowledging the inherent inhumanity of its counterpart’s creed.
I am looking forward to Ramadan moving towards summer period in the Middle East in next 10 years.
With global warming and 50+ degree Celsius in the ME, Darwins theory will reach its zenith in Ramadan...
Survival of the fittest
"Perhaps a certain "atheling" who finds me unbrief and therefore unwitty, will concede that, at times, I have my points -- because I know how to make them."
In this case, touche.
The Vatican comes down on the "right" side regarding islam because the Church always remembers that Islam has been and still is, ultimately, a heresy, and therefore does not possess the truth.
It's no great secret why Benedict XVI chose his name. The father of Western monasticism, Benedict of Nursia, (480-547 AD), saw the fall of Rome, as well as the world as he knew it. His monasteries preserved the teachings of the Church and the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans and Europe plunged into the "Dark Ages", as we call it.
GK Chesterton astutely referred to the Dark Ages as a "gestation period", which culminated in the Renaissance, where we see the dawn of the West's greatness.
Benedict XVI sees the potential of history repeating itself, and prepares the Church for another collapse.
The Church will endure.
Atheling,
As Hugh points out above, the Latin Mass has recieved a universal indult for the 1962 missal in which the phrase "perfidious Jews" nowhere appears. Even before that this phrase did not refer to all Jews but to a very small and particular group of Jews whose actions were "perfidious" in one regard: namely it was a reference to Caiaphas and that particular group who arranged for the death of Jesus. There were also references to the perfidious acts of the Roman soldiers in scourging, mocking, and spitting on Christ.
Contrary to your libel, the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, has always held that the Jews who joined the ranks of the first Christians on Pentecost included many of the very same Jews that cried "crucify him" fifty days earlier. Instead, the only people deemed "perfidious" are those, both Jews and Gentiles, who consciously betray justice in the deaths of innocents such as Christ. There simply is no blanket antisemitic condemnation of all Jews since that would condemn Christ and all his apostles who were themselves Jews. If today, the Pope were to condemn the "perfidious Muslims" who murder the innocent, it would not be a condemnation of every single Muslim.
Provoslavni:
Excuse me, but what "libel" are you referring to?
That was a very mature reply, demonstrating unequivocally that, unlike me, you certainly possess knowledge of history and the Church.
I am tempted to respond, but that would undermine the purpose of this website - to educate and unite all kuffar against the menace of Islam - and as a result my comment would be erased and I would be blocked.
So let's leave it at that.
BTW, disapproval of the Church does not imply necessarily disapproval of individual Catholics, just as disapproval of the Republican Party does not imply necessarily disapproval of individual conservatives who, currently, seem to have no political affiliation alternatives.
US_infidel:
I guess you didn't read any of the subsequent comments.
But then, being a bigot means you can keep your blinders on.
atheling:
Don't make things worse for yourself and for your faith. As Mark Twain said, "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
Let's keep discourse at a level that befits the quality and reputation of this website.
US_Infidel:
I find your attitude appallingly rude.
You come here and say insulting comments about the faith of many of the readers here, their leader who is the only religious figure who has spoken out consistently against Islamofascism, and then you continue to insult me personally.
You are obviously not a Christian, as I think most Christians have the humility, honesty, and generosity to apologize to those they have insulted, particularly in this time when people should unite.
Instead, you continue, obdurate and arrogant as ever, pretending that you are the "victim" in this unpleasantness.
I suggest that from now on, if there is a post about the Catholic Church, the Pope, or Catholics, that you steer clear, since you cannot seem to refrain from proclaiming your ignorant prejudices, and I will not dhimmify myself to you.
As a matter of fact, US_infidel, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You owe an apology to Catholics for your rude and ignorant remarks.
You have been proven erroneous on all counts, and yet you persist in your indefensible position.
It's apparent who the fool is in this exchange.
Shame on you.
How about this quarrel being taken outside the saloon?
My own comment was not meant to be a blanket endorsement of anything, and hope it was not taken as such, but was meant to set the record straight on the contents of the recently re-available Latin Mass, and on the position the present Pope takes on Islam, and therefore what this means about his value, to all of us, at this moment in history. It might not have been Benedict. It might have been that American-bashing cardinal from Honduras, whose name I forget, whose motives and worldview are at least suspect, and had he been not only papabile but become Pope, all of us might have regretted that too-soon rising smoke and then have deplored the powers that would then be in the Vatican at this same moment in history. But he didn't have the votes. Benedict did, and long may he live, and be followed by someone who agrees on the matter of Islam. We can all count our geopolitical blessings, and that includes those who are devout atheists and not particularly admiring of the Vatican.
The quarrel referred to does not need to be over; it merely needs to be over, no longer taking up space at Jihad Watch. The cost of real estate here is expensive -- prohibitively so.
Excuse me, but I am fed up with the constant Catholic bashing on this site. And don't obfuscate, US_infidel rudester, when YOU INSULT THE POPE, YOU INSULT CATHOLICS.
I think I have a right to defend my faith from ignorant fools full of real hatred. And, sorry, Hugh, but to receive an admonishment regarding bandwith use from you is laughable.
It's an interesting bed we have here in this fight against Islamofascism. We are all labelled "racist" or "bigots", and many of us are indeed dismayed, for we are not those things at all.
However, it would be foolish or naive to suppose that every person who is dedicated to this cause is not a bigot to some degree. I mean, the odds in favor of having a real bigot on board are inevitable.
And my use of "dhimmify" can naturally be broadened to include any kind of hostility, rudeness and dissembling from anyone, not just Muslims.
Still waiting for your apology to Catholics, US_infidel. Do you have any principles or decency?
Very Slightly O/T but very relevent with regards to "Islamophobia" and the lefts love of islam.
From the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/10/namis110.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/09/namis109.xml
"Vatican urges Muslim respect for all faiths"
....Islam urges death or slavery for all faiths other than Islam...
...I can see a difference....
Provoslavni:
Excuse me, but what "libel" are you referring to?
-----------------------------
Atheling, my apologies. It was a typo. I meant to write "the libel" not "your libel" referring, of course, to the libel that the old liturgy was somehow anti-semitic.
Robert, Hugh,
Thank-you for taking the time to post what I have e-mailed yesterday to yous. Also to those who have been doing an argument on this thread about the Latin Mass, certain prayers, ete., please let it end or do it via e-mails. Time is too much important to waste as well as space. Fighting like this hurts me not only as a Christian/Catholic, but also as a person very concerned for the threat(s) of jihad that is going on. Also I do hope to fine more articles that do involve this issue of jihad and its related issues in the future. Take care.
Bigcatgirl13106
PS: Pope Benedict XVI has agreed to having a book done on his life through the eyes of his cat, Chico.
This is ultimatley what it comes down to, Pope Benedict is one the few religious leaders who understands the threat that islam poses to Europe and ultimatley all of civilization.
He has spoken out about islam numerous times. He took a trip to Turkey at great personal risk and spoke with president Bush to highlight the plight of Chrisitans and all religious minorities in muslim countries.
He has written material in both books and documents which cover islam in one way or another.
The Vatican now releases regular messages on the need for religious freedoms in muslim countries.
Its clear what is going on, the Pope has a consistent message if we choose to listen. Unforunatly the message is distorted by the media. It is also distorted by individuals with anti-Catholic/anti-Vatican biases. I am NOT saying that everyone who has a problem with the Church is anti-Catholic, but it is clear when it is.
The common theme is to say "he is not doing enough" or "such and such happened in the past, so the Church and its message is no longer legitimate". The comments seem to be varations of these themes....
Whether you like or agree with the Catholic faith & its theology, whether you like the "concept" of a Pope and the Vatican, stop polluting the message.....
http://www.popebenedictxvifanclub.com/blog/
http://www.mirezo.com/
http://www.catholicleague.com/release.php?id=1291
Speaking of respecting all religions, Folks, how many of our readers here have heard what our illustrious House of Representatives recently did? On October 2, 2007, the House unanimously, by a vote of 376-0, passed a resolution honoring Islam and commending the followers of the Muslim faith, nationally and internationally.
Look up H. Res. 635, passed on October 2, 2007.
Can anyone, in their right mind, understand whatever possessed our elected "representatives" to honor, in the Nation's halls of freedom and liberty, the very religion that directs its followers to kill every non-believer and remove them from the face of the Earth?
I realize that I am departing from the Forum's subject here, but another thing about the House's action that I fail to grasp is the fact that it even took a vote recognizing a religion, any religion at that. Our U.S. Constitution does not recogize religion; it merely grants U.S. citizens the freedom of religion; and it does not reccognize any state-sponsored religion, while we're on that subject. Don't misunderstand me: I do believe in religion, I have my own faith in the one true God, so I'm not castigating religion. I'm merely questioning the step that Congress has taken, recognizing any religion at all.
Does this motivate our readers here to contact their elected "representatives" concerning the duties of Congress? I hope so. Thanks for reading.
I thought, instead of sending good wishes to late gnostic heretics (Muslims), the Pope and his people were supposed to admonish them for straying from the true faith and to call them to return to the fold?
They are all in need of a tough nun with a big ruler hitting them on their wimpy knuckles.
Whatever happened to believing in what you believe in?
And being able to recognize frauds like Islam?
profitsbeard:
The dialogue is not at that stage yet.