You know, if I was a Jihadi and I wanted Israel to attack my country so the world would condem it, I just might write a letter to the Prime Minister of Israel begging him to attack my country and letting him know how righteous it would be. Beware of reverse propoganda

Posted by: Avatar at July 14, 2006 12:48 PM

"Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into "a conflict with international repercussions."

Pope Benedict should know better.

Posted by: Amillennialist at July 14, 2006 1:01 PM

Bleah.

But given how dhimmified so much of Europe has become, I guess it's not too much of a surprise that so much of the Church hierarchy subscribes to that brand of politics.

Clearly, they need our prayers. In a big way.

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 14, 2006 1:01 PM

Is Israel's bombing "disproportionate"? "Disproportionate" to what? So far, after all those bombs in three days of sensational and excited and much exaggerated coverage, a grand total of 73 people have died in Lebanon. How many of them were "innocent civilians," that is people who did not ardenly support the continued Hezbollah attacks on Israel when there was not a single Israeli soldier left in Lebanon? Given Israel's size, its lack of strategic depth, the fact that in the pre-1967 armistice lines it is 8 miles wide, and one has some idea of its pitifully tiny size by the fact that Haifa, that was hit with rockets "deep inside Israel," is a mere 18 miles from the Lebanese border. Israel cannot tolerate any of this. It may be difficult for Americans, with the Atlantic Ocean standing guard on one side, and the Pacific Ocean standing guard on the other, and reasonably friendly if often un-admiring Canada to the north, and perhaps too-friendly and a little too-admiring Mexico to the south, to quite perform the feat of imagination required to imagine what it must be like to live in Israel, what the real size of the country, and size of the dangers, are. But at least we should all close our eyes and try.

Is the response "disproportionate" to the danger that Israel endures, the maximum peril in which its citizens normally live, made still greater today by rockets from the south, from Gaza, and now much better and more deadly rockets from the north, from the territory that, like Gaza, the Israelis had completely left, with the expectation that the Lebanese government in the north would re-assert its authority, and in the south, that the "Palestinian" Authority's gunmen would overpower the Hamas gunmen, and keep things quiet so that the Slow Jihad would have a chance to work its magic.

No one who has ever studied any bombing campaign anywhere, including those of the British and the Americans, or of NATO, can with a straight face denounce the Israeli bombings as either indiscriminate -- they are meticulous -- or as "disproportionate" compared to the threat of rockets lobbed smack in the middle of Haifa, and the entire north of Israel being subject to other rockets and being emptied of its population.

The targets are obvious. They consist in immediate Hezbollah targets, including houses and other buildings in which rockets and weaponry have been stored. They include Hezbollah's radio and television, its headquarters, its camps in southern Lebanon and smack in southern Beirut.

Other targets -- such as the airport -- do make life more difficult for other Lebanese. But even if the airport is not the main conduit for arms from Syria and Iran, it is certainly a conduit that has been used in the past (American and Israeli agents have been watching). Other airports have, or could now, serve the same function. Bridges and roads between Syra and Lebanon are natural targets, for the Israelis are trying to make more difficult the resupply, with "volunteers" and with weapons, Hezbollah, from Syria and ultimatlely, Iran.

Finally, the Israelis are trying to get the Druse, the Christians, even the Sunni Arabs whose patience with the Shi'a in Lebanon is not unlimited, to in turn pressure the current Lebanese government. Siniora, and Sa'ad Hariri, together have been continuing to support Hezbollah, allowing its members into the government. They, in turn, must be pressured by those oppoosed to Hezbollah, to now stand up to it, or to face more damage. That is the strategy.

During World War II, at a meeting at Wellesley College devoted to the topic "Why We Fight," Vladimir Nabokov ended his own brief remarks thus:

"Morallly, democracy is invincible. Physically, that side will win which has the better guns."

Morally, the Israeli case for defending its citizens from an endless, and endlessly malevolent, Jihad is invincible.

Physically, that side will win -- those engaged in Jihad, whether against Israel or against any other Infidel people or polity, and those attempting to defend themselvs against that Jihad -- which has the better, not merely or mainly "guns," but all the varied instruments of modern warfare, including diplomatic and economic weapons, propaganda, a coherent, unsentimental strategy, and a refusal to be demoralized.

That should be understood by Infidels everywhere, by Madrilenos and Mumbaikars and Muscovites, and of course by citizens of the United States. Whatever phony or pro-forma distancing from the Israeli effort some political or other leaders may engage in, people will or should understand. Infidles must learn as much as they can about the nature, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics, of Islam, and learn as well about the remarkably consistent story of Muslim Jihad-conquest and of subsequent treatment of non-Muslims, so that they will be better able to understand, and give support to, one another -- the same kind of support that Muslims everywhere, when ethnic or sectarian divisions do not get in the way, offer each other.

Posted by: Hugh at July 14, 2006 1:25 PM

The Vatican statement is very disappointing and quite wrong. Strangely enough, some ordinary Lebanese interviewed on the dhimmi Beeb this morning condemned Hezbollah more than Israel.

No other country is held to this standard. Israel should do what it has to do. It will be condemned anyway.

Madrilenos and Mumbaikars and Muscovites...

And Mancunians.

"Mumbaikar" is interesting. Presumably "-kar" means "citizen of", as in Vikrant Camberley-kar, who, I am pleased to see, is back with us.

Posted by: Interested at July 14, 2006 1:35 PM

americaningermany asks

How long will Swiss law still be in force?
How long will it be before Sharia law takes over in Switzerland?

If Bruce Bawer is right in his assertion that Switzerland is 20% Muslim now, I fear that the former will be expunged and the latter the law of the land there by 2040-2050.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 14, 2006 2:23 PM

Two people -- Siniora and Sa'ad Hariri -- deserve special attention, for it is they who brought Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, they who did not make the slighest attempt to obtaiin, as a quid pro quo, the ceasing of Hezbollah attacks and the disarming of much, if not all, of its black-balaclaved bezonians. Hariri is the slick billionaire son of the pseudo-martyr Rafik Hariri, one more louche Middle Eastern businessman who made his money in Saudi Arabia (and that is a very particular place, where money is made in very particular ways -- remember Khashoggi, of the S. S. Nabila? Remember all those other conduits for armaments bribes, those assorted courtiers good at kickbacks to the Al-Saud princes, hands eternally out for more, more, more of the national patrimony that they presume to deserve?), in this respect akin to Gamal Mubarak, another second-generationer, inheritor of papa's fortune and fate, much more acceptably western in outward aspect.

As for Siniora, I'll leave his description to any Lebanese Christians who wish to add their two bits.

Amazing to think that even Walid Jumblatt is much more of a Lebanese patriot than either Siniora or Sa'ad Hariri. The latter, by the way, who has declared in public his undying affection for the country in which he was raised -- Saudi Arabia. Anyone who feels that kind of affection for Saudi Arabia cannot conceivably be a Lebanese patriot. Saudi Arabia is all about Islam; it is suffused with Islam. Lebanon was, for centuries the last redoubt of Christians. The Maronites retreated to mountain fastnesses, just as the Hindus in Kashmir retreated during the time of Muslim rule to the hills, and left the Vale of Kashmir, alas, to the triumphant Muslims), just as the Christians in the Balkans retreated to the heights and the hills. It was the same story everywhere. This was Maronite territory, the only place in the Middle East where the Arab conquerors did not succeed in their islamization, or in their suppression of the local Christians. And the only hope for those Christians -- and for the Druse, and even for the Sunnis who have been horrified to find themselves outbred by the Shi'a (the same thing happened in Iraq, where the Sunnis once were nearly equal to the Shi'a in percentage of the population).

Lebanese officials will continue to be indignant publically about Israel's attacks. Why not? The Israelis won't punish them. But if many of them expressed their real thoughts, very few could deny that they are hoping that Israel demolishes Hezbollah. This doesn't mean that, outside the Maronites, they recognize an identity of interest with Israel. But it does mean that they fear and hate Hezbollah.

Those outside Lebanon, hearing about official Lebanese protests, should keep this reality firmly in mind. The Israelis do. They know that if they inflict enough punishment, down the line the non-Shi'a will turn on Hezbollah, and try once and for all to deal with that problem. After all, they don't want a repetititon of the last few days, or the next few weeks. When the airport is rebuilt, they'd like it to stay that way. It's up to them.

Posted by: Hugh at July 14, 2006 2:45 PM

Avatar said:
Beware of reverse propoganda

Do you know what happened to the Christian town of Damour in 1976?
In short Arafat and his thugs massacred more than 500 men, women and children.
Turned the church into a garage for their jeeps and a small arms pistol range, desecrated the graveyard and looted the corpses.
And the only ones who helped the Christians in any way were the Israelis. Read what Brigitte Gabriel has to say. She was in the neighbourhood.
The Church turned its back on them, so to speak.

Posted by: Cynic at July 14, 2006 2:57 PM

Farid, Nadim and Ellie

Hope that people like you end up running things in Lebanon, once the Iranians, Syrians and Lebanese Muslims are eviscerated.

Greetings from a fellow infidel

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 14, 2006 3:00 PM

There are still Lebanese Christians?! I thought they were all either expelled or butchered by Arafat's PLO beasts, and that nowadays in Lebanon there are only Muslims.

Posted by: US_infidel at July 14, 2006 3:23 PM

You need to recall that the people who run the Vatican are EUROPEAN! Id est, they share the same views, attitudes, predilections and prejudices of Europe. That means they lean left of center politically, and are now imbibing from that same pipe of multiculturalism.

You all need to recall as well, that centuries of criticism have taken a toll on the Vatican. They too, so wish to be liked and respected. Which is why they seem to run with the Lefty herd so much of late. They want to avoid media criticism. The left controls the media, so if you want to avoid their scrutiny, you concur with them.

It's all rather painful to observe.

You realize how much damage is being done to the West, all for want of a real, unvarnished courage.

Posted by: Dan at July 14, 2006 4:28 PM

With friends like these church officials, who needds muslims?

Posted by: SafetyFirst at July 14, 2006 4:44 PM

Can anyone explain to me why Jews are so universally hated by everyone? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 14, 2006 4:50 PM

Cardinal Soldano's statement was in diplomatese (an attempt to appear "balanced") which we all know is meaningless claptrap.

On the other hand, Vatican Radio broadcast an interview with Father David-M. A. Jaeger, OFM, who is a Vatican expert in the region. Father Jaeger clearly lays the blame where it belongs, on Hezbullah, Iran, and the Lebanese government.

He said correctly that it is necessary to "understand the depth and force of Israeli anger. Israel's Prime Minister emphasized that Israel view it as an attack, an act of war, by the Lebanese state because Lebanon has so far declined to carry out UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called upon it to disarm all armed organizations or militias, or in some cases, actually terrorist organizations operating on Lebanese soil including Hezbullah."

He also points out that Hezbullah must "justify its continued existence" by continually launching attacks on Israel "which it must also justify to its sponsors, it is financed and armed by Iran..."

You can listen to a short audio-clip from Father Jaeger's interview at the Vatican Radio site:

http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=87082

Just click on the little speaker symbol.

Anyone who knows the inner workings of the Holy See will realize that Soldano's "official" claptrap is just a political nicety while Jaeger is expressing the Pope's real views.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 5:02 PM

Provoslavni, thanks for your insight and link. I find that interesting. I'm a fan of this pope because from the rumors one hears--he seems to be quite a philospher with knowledge of Islam. I seem to remember some public remark he made while meeting a Muslim a while back--it surprised me in a positive way. The current Pope I believe was a German soldier during World War II and left the army for moral reasons. I think his brother may have done this as well. At any rate, he strikes me as a balanced fellow. He has a hard act to follow. I had the greatest respect for John Paul II. He began a reproachment between Catholics and Jews; going so far as calling Jews our elder brothers if memory serves correctly. The Pope wears many hats(I'm not trying to make a pun here). He must worry about his flock and priests in most unfriendly places the world over. I see not a shred of dhimmitude yet displayed by this Pope. I might point out, however, that his staunch, tradionalist ways concerning the sacntity of life(I'm not referring to abortion but rather the respect and dignity of the elderly) seems a bit at odds with Europe's anything goes mentality regarding the distintigration of the family, failing religiousity of the Non-Muslim populations.

Posted by: biorabbi at July 14, 2006 5:13 PM

I guess my point I want to hammer home is that the Pope is in charge of not just the moral authority of the Church per se, but also for the lives of Church personal in Pakistan, Turkey and Lebanon. He has good reason to worry about their lives, judging from the knifing of Priests in Turkey. And, no doubt, it would not be an easy existance to be a Christian in any of these countries--unless you try to prove your more Muslim than the Imman. When this happens, it is sad, for dhimmitude never wins permanent brownie points; just increasing 'demands.' Bottom line: it wouldn't be easy to be a Christian or Jew in one of the lands of Allah.

Posted by: biorabbi at July 14, 2006 5:17 PM

Anyone who knows the inner workings of the Holy See will realize that Soldano's "official" claptrap is just a political nicety while Jaeger is expressing the Pope's real views.

Thanks - that puts it in perspective. But as I said above, no other country is held to such a high standard. And Israelis hold themselves to a high standard too.

What is annoying is that people who hold Israel to a high standard don't acknowledge that they do so because it is good. They just condemn it. Why is this? I think the answer is in a question that J C Supercop asked:

Can anyone explain to me why Jews are so universally hated by everyone? I just don't get it.

Anti-Semitism is a virus that mutates. Unlike other forms of discrimination, it will always be with us. As Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" said (to God): "I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can't You choose someone else?"

Posted by: Interested at July 14, 2006 5:51 PM

I'm also ashamed to be a Catholic when I read this. There is so much dhimmitude within the Church, but I had hope for Pope Benedict until this. Lebanese Catholics, on the other hand, generally have a more realistic view of Islam when compared to Catholics elsewhere in the world. But when will the rest of the world wake up? And will it be in time? God help us.

Posted by: NCKaffir at July 14, 2006 6:12 PM

The Vatican should be very careful about how they condemn Israel for it was Israel who has had her borders violated by Lebanese Paramilitaries not only only the kidnapping of Israeli solders from Israeli sovereign territory but the constant rocket attacks from over the Lebanese border.

The Vatican does not have an excellent track record when dealing with anti Semitic thugs.

No doubt the Dhimmi media and organisations will see it as a case of terrorists kidnap Israelis and launch rockets into Israel, Israel then makes unprovoked attack on poor Muslims.

Posted by: IceDragon at July 14, 2006 6:26 PM

Now I know from where the Bush Admin. got it's backbone - they stole the Vatican's.

Posted by: Pelayo at July 14, 2006 6:44 PM

How much longer must we be beggars for crumbs? "Ooh, the Pope met with Oriana Fallaci, he must be on our side now!"

No. No more crumbs. We want responsible leaders of Church and various States to boldly state the facts. Stop settling for less, you famished Jihad Watchers.

Posted by: Television at July 14, 2006 6:52 PM

Biorabbi,

Thanks for the kind words. Your points about the current Pope are accurate. His father was a Bavarian policeman and an outspoken anti-Nazi. The young Ratzinger and his brother were drafted first into the Hitler Youth, as was every German teenager, and then into the army. Even as teenagers, their father's influence was stronger than the social pressures of the Reich and both defected as soon as possible, heading for the US lines. This was an act that could have got them shot. There is no doubt that this pope is very sensitive to Judaism and healing the unfortunate misunderstandings that have divided our two communities.

As for Soldano's statement: The Secretariate of State represents the Holy See, not just the church. This is typical of the diplomatic infection that plaques most foriegn ministries. As pathetic as Soldano's statement was, we both know that there are officials in both Bush's State Department and Olmert's Foreign Ministry that would put him to shame with their own dhimmitude.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 7:09 PM

I am not sure Cardinal Sodano is speaking for Pope Benedict. He was one of the liberals who was in line to become pope after the death of John Paul II. On June 22, 2006 Pope Benedict accepted his resignation as Vatican Secretary of State, but he will remain in office until September. Perhaps it was accepted because of an attempt to clean house. I believe it was primarily Cardinal Sodano who was responsible for the anti-Israel and anti-American comments coming out of the Vatican.

Posted by: Karmajazz at July 14, 2006 7:33 PM

Wasn't the Vatican silent when Hitler was exterminating the Jews?

Didn't they feel bad about that a few years ago and apologized for not doing enough?

Why are they letting it happen again and why aren't they seeing the muslims doing the same thing the Nazi's did?

????

Posted by: freewoman at July 14, 2006 7:51 PM

Wasn't the Vatican silent when Hitler was exterminating the Jews?

This is a major misconception, their were individual Catholics who did terrible things, but the Vatican wasn't silent in the sense of doing nothing for the Jewish people. Please look over the information:

Pope Pius XII and the Holocost
http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/framemain.htm

Cardinal Soldano's statement was in diplomatese (an attempt to appear "balanced") which we all know is meaningless claptrap.

Provoslavni, your posts are excellent.

Unfortunatly their are some very liberal elements within the Church hiearchy. I remember during the early stages of the war in Iraq some statements were coming out of the lower hierarchy of the Church which were clearly anti-American (of a European bent). George Wilson called out that particular organization when he went to the Vatican to argue the Iraq war was a just war. (sorry I can't come up with the link at this time, but I think it was a Jesuit order).

Posted by: adobe at July 14, 2006 8:26 PM

"There are still Lebanese Christians?!"

Heck, yeah!

Up until very recently, Lebanon was a Catholic country. (Lebanese Catholics are called Maronites.) Nowadays, there is no one religious denomination that holds the majority in the country, though most Leanese today are Muslim.

Christians today make up about 40 percent of the population, and most of these are Catholics. The laws of Lebanon are such that the President is ALWAYS a Maronite Catholic, and Christians always occupy half the seats (64 of 128) of Pariliament (43 of these seats are given to Catholics).

Our Lady of Lebanon, pray for us!

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 9:14 PM

With respect to the pro-Vatican posters above, their comments in regards to Pope Benedict are flat out wrong.

1. Pope Benedict didn't "desert" anything. He was Hitler Youth and manned guns fighting against the Allies. He was also mentored by Cardinal Frings who supported efforts to hide Nazi war criminals during the Ratline period.

2. Pope Pius XII was a monster who fully supported the fascist Croatian puppet state. Certainly, there has been a great PR effort by the Vatican (which as a Catholic myself, I view separately from Catholiciscm) to obscure this reality, but the fact is the Vatican supported the Nazis. Period. While never letting the taqiyya-meisters of the world get away with their revisionism, Nazi revisionism should not be permitted anywhere.

Also, the current corrupt state of the Vatican is evident in the mere fact that there would be two "spins" for different audiences and "playing politics". Jesus would not approve.

My two cents...

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 9:40 PM

Freewoman,

Not only was the Vatican not silent, but condemed Nazism as pagan and idolatrous from the very beginning of the Third Reich. On March 14, 1937, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical "MIT BRENNENDER SORGE" (German for "With deep anxiety", word by word: "With burning worry")which not only condemned the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church but condemed racism and statism in the strongest terms.

In a break from Vatican protocol, the encyclical was issued not in Latin but in German and ordered to be read from every German pulpit. Among other things the Pope wrote:

"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."

He concluded the encyclical with the hope that Germany would abandon the paganism of the Nazis and return to the Christian Faith:

"Our sons and daughters, for whom the sufferings of the Church in Germany and their own have left intact their devotion to the cause of God, their tender love for the Father of Christendom, their obedience to their pastors, their joyous resolution to remain ever faithful, happen what may, to the sacred inheritance of their ancestors..."

and finally an open call that Germany be liberated from the Nazis: "We are sure, the enemies of the Church, who think that their time has come, will see that their joy was premature, and that they may close the grave they had dug. The day will come when the Te Deum of liberation will succeed to the premature hymns of the enemies of Christ: Te Deum of triumph and joy and gratitude, as the German people return to religion, bend the knee before Christ, and arming themselves against the enemies of God, again resume the task God has laid upon them."

You can read the whole text in English at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

Pope Pius XI credited its creation and writing to his Papal Secretary of State, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 9:40 PM

Some pictures are worth a MILLION words. And the Vatican has had many empty, meaningless words over the years regarding Nazism. Just as they have many empty, meaningless words about Islam today. Also, regardless of Da Vinci Code claptrap, never forget that the main power behind Benedict is Opus Dei, founded by Father Escriva, a fascist and anti-semite.

http://emperor.vwh.net/images/bishops.jpg
http://emperor.vwh.net/images/orsen.jpg
http://emperor.vwh.net/images/salute.jpg

http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm

But the evidence shows that:

A) The Catholic Church hierarchy - especially Eugenio Pacelli, before and after he became Pope Pius XII - aided the Nazis. Indeed, Pacelli and the Church played a central role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany.

B) The Catholic Church was active in Nazi movements outside Germany, especially in the Baltic region and in the Balkans, where the Church helped run the Nazi puppet State of Croatia. After the war, the Vatican sheltered Croatian Nazi war criminals.

C) Although at Yad Vashem, Pope John Paul II described the Nazis as having "a Godless ideology," this is not how the Nazis presented themselves or how the Catholic Church described the Nazis when they were in power.

The German Catholic Church's Centre Party (Zentrum) did clash with the Nazis in the 1920s, but as Hitler wrote (see quote below) their quarrel was over politics, not Catholic religious teachings, let alone belief in god. I can find no record from the period of Nazi rule of the Catholic Church attacking the Nazis as atheists, perhaps because they weren't. The Nazis themselves claimed they were fighting against atheism, specifically Bolshevist atheism, which they charged was a Jewish-created movement. In attacking the Jews, the Nazis routinely employed Christian symbolism and traditional Christian antisemitic arguments, with which Europeans were familiar.

On 23 March 1933, the Nazi government put forward the Enabling act, which would allow Hitler to create new laws without parliamentary approval. This was after the Nazi-staged Reichstag fire; after the banning of the huge Communist party and subsequent arrest of thousands of communists and other anti-Nazis; and amidst a campaign of violent antisemitism. To become law, the Enabling act needed a 2/3 parliamentary vote. Before the vote, Hitler addressed the Reichstag (parliament) saying:

"While the Government is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both [Catholic and Protestant] Christian confessions the most important factors for the maintenance of our folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the States. However, it respects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation. The Government will treat all other denominations with equal objective justice. It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain denomination or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to commit or tolerate crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living together of Church and State." (My emphasis - Jared Israel)
--- http://tinyurl.com/g8gh3

The Social Democrats fiercely opposed the Enabling act. Hitler needed a 2/3 majority, so the balance lay with Zentrum, the Catholic Center Party. Zentrum leader Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, a close friend and advisor to Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, addressed the Reichstag. Far from attacking the Enabling act, or disputing Hitler's claim that Nazism was based on Christianity, Kaas called for a 'yes' vote. The Zentrum faction did vote 'yes,' and the act became law. According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen, a liberal Catholic and student of Vatican history (he has written a biography of Joseph Ratzinger):

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 9:48 PM

Abu Lahab,

You are dead wrong about both Ratzinger and the Vatican. As for the latter, read my post above to Freewoman.

As for Ratzinger, following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth as membership was legally required after December 1936. He was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend any meetings. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, because he believed it was in conflict with their faith. In 1941 one of Ratzinger's cousins with Downs syndrome was killed by the Nazi regime. In 1943, when he was 16, Ratzinger was drafted with many of his classmates into the Luftwaffenhelfer (Air Force Auxiliary) programme. After his class was released from the Corps in September 1944, Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in the Hungarian border area of Austria in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive. He was eventually drafted into the German army at Munich to receive basic infantry training in the nearby town of Traunstein. His unit served at various posts around the city and was never sent to the front, so he never fought against the allies as you falsely claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

The Church's position was clear, one could not be a true Catholic and be a Nazi.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 9:52 PM

Abu Lahab,

As for the photos above, in the 1930s, in many states of the United States, children pledged allegiance to the US flag with outstretched arm. This was changed to the current "hand over heart" precisely because the fascists used it. Actually long before the nazis and fascists, it was known as the "Roman salute" and it went back to the ancient Roman Empire.

I've seen pictures of Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky giving the same salute in 1929. So what?

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 10:00 PM

Robert,
Don't be mad at Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the only Church that stepped up to the Muslims invaders in Europe and the Holyland. The Pope doesn't want the whole world going into war, Israel and Islamic world really need to ease down, before we have millions die. Isreal must stand strong and play their cards straight, but innocent Lebaneese Christians, may get killed too. So there is a lot at stake.......Pray for our Church and let's pray for Peace.....
God Bless
Chris

Posted by: Ironman at July 14, 2006 10:02 PM

"After his class was released from the Corps in September 1944, Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in the Hungarian border area of Austria in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive."

Yes, he was fighting for the Nazis. Thank you for clarifying my point.

"As for the photos above, in the 1930s, in many states of the United States, children pledged allegiance to the US flag with outstretched arm."

Yes, but outside of the German-American Bund types, they weren't using that salute during ceremonies and events
with NAZIS as is clearly demonstrated in the pictures I linked to. Are you claiming that somehow all those Cardinals
were merely invoking "Romanism" rather than their alliance with the Fascists, particularly in Croatia? Please clarify for me what the Vatican's attitude towards Ante Pavelic was during this period. Did they support him or fight him? Please answer this question.

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 10:11 PM

As a Catholic, I was brought up on a truly Dhimmi
Vatican, nothing has changed unfortunately. We look like we are now entering into the final stages of a New World War, now is not the time to listen to any one who would have us turn the other cheek. May God Bless the men and women of
Israel in what is to come.

Posted by: sul3j at July 14, 2006 10:11 PM

"We look like we are now entering into the final stages of a New World War, now is not the time to listen to any one who would have us turn the other cheek."

Amen to that. The Vatican's position (say what you want, but this is the secretary of state saying this) reminds me of something I heard on Tovias Singer's show on Israeli National Radio about how Germany is always apologizing for the Holocaust, yet doing nothing about current Islamic terror (though Merkel seems to have a clue). Benedict and the rest can apologize all they want for WW2 and uncomfortable anti-semitism in the Church's past, but it is hollow when they do nothing about the CURRENT Holocaust, which is exactly what the muslims want.

I want, no, I DEMAND, as a Catholic who has given much of my money, heart and soul to the Church that Benedict make a strong statement on behalf of Israel. He is not infallible, he is a human who was elected, and is completely failing to protect Jews and Christians from dhimmitude. Catholics need to call him on that and not let him hide behind "Vatican sources" and occasional "anti-Islamic" speeches. He has shown that he is capable of strong action, like his takedown of the monstrous pedophile Father Maciel of Mexico, which not even JP2 was able to pull off. He needs to show that strength again... NOW! Or all Catholics will be locked out of the Holy Lands forever.

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 10:25 PM

Abu Lahab:

"Yes, he was fighting for the Nazis. Thank you for clarifying my point."

So what if he were fighting for Nazis? Hitler's was a duly elected government, and so in many respects perfectly legitimate. Individual Germans were therefore perfectly justified in limited service in the German government, particularly when they're just kids forcefully conscripted.

The early Church, following the lead of Jesus and the Apostles, allowed Christians to serve in the Roman army and ordered obedience to the Roman government (Romans 13 was written under Nero!); it was understood, however, that they were not to obeycommands which contradicted God's laws.

Ditto with regards to Germans and Nazi Germany. Is every German who payed taxes during those years implicated in the Nazi genocide? Not necessarily. Many people did what they could, and cooperated with the democratically elected regime to the extent that theycould do so with violating the moral law. Ratzinger was one of these, as were several Catholic prelates. They showed he obesiance due to the government while at the same trime criticizing the abuses. When Hitler's maniacal agenda became better well-known, such public gestures became rarer, and persecution of Catholics intensified.

You really ought to view the German film "The Ninth Day", based on a true story and solidly researched, to see just how anti-Catholic the Nazi Regime was, and how active was the Catholic resistance. See:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ninth_day/

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 10:32 PM

Abu:

Do your homework.

The Holy See, and the Popes personally, have consistently affirmed the right of Israel to exist as a soverign state.

As well, the Holy See has been beefing up its criticisms of Islam:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23225

And finally, it ought to say a lot that just recently the Holy Father has appointed a new Secretary of State to replace Cardinal Sodano (with whom he has constantly been at odds). The new Secretary, Cardinal Bertone, will take over in September. Be patient.

Meanwhile, disagree though we might on these remarks from the Holy See (and disagree I certainly do!), the Pope is entitled to his informed opinion on particular actions on the part of Israel, and it's okay if he disagrees with us.

The Holy Father isn't infallible in this regard; but neither is Israel. Once can acknowledge the justice of a war without giving aprobation to every single action undertaken by the just-combatant.

No that I personally believe Israel is in the wrong here; I just respect the right of others to disagree.

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 10:41 PM

"He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign" Sun Tzu

Sovereign = King, Pope, Priest, President, Czar, etc etc etc....(enter what you want)

In other words stay out of it Pope and it would not hurt to offer words that encourage the good guys for a change....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 14, 2006 10:42 PM

DominvsVobiscvm

This is my real problem with the Catholic Church....the beauracacy!!!!!

No wonder every war the church "led" was a disaster. Its takes for ever to get anything done. For heavens sake the Muslims will have to blow up the Vatican before the "Holy see" can "see" the problem.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 14, 2006 10:57 PM

"Pope is entitled to his informed opinion on particular actions on the part of Israel, and it's okay if he disagrees with us."

Certainly. Also, I should apologize to those I offend, I am quite upset by the current events, watching Israeli children huddle in bunkers. As a member of Western society, the Pope has that right. However, as the head of one of the world's most powerful and influential bodies, he has the responsibility to make clear his support for the rule of law against sheer piracy. Putin has failed this test, France (duh) has failed, much of Europe has failed, and most of the world has failed. Bush, despite his limitations has passed (so far). Merkel has passed, (so far). Blair has a B+ that is in serious dhimmi danger. Olmert is making up overdue homework. Robert and Hugh have A++'s. Until I hear a definitive comment from Pope Benedict, he has an incomplete. I would like that turned into an A+. I don't even care about the past with him, it is the NOW that matters.

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 11:03 PM

"However, as the head of one of the world's most powerful and influential bodies, he has the responsibility to make clear his support for the rule of law against sheer piracy."

Have you read the Daniel Pipes peace? Honestly, and realisitcally, what do you want to hear from the Pope on this matter?

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 11:10 PM

" In February, the pope emphasized the need to respect “the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all.” In May, he again stressed the need for reciprocity: Christians must love immigrants and Muslims must treat well the Christians among them."

Do you mean that? Aside from that, the pipes piece does NOT focus on the opinions of Benedict. All of that is well and good. Here is what I want to hear TOMORROW.

"The state of Israel, like all democratic countries, has the right to self-defense against terrorists. No country in Europe or elswhere, would allow attacks from a group represented in a neighboring state's legislature. The Holy Lands, which are treasured by many faiths, are at risk of destruction for the folly of pirates and extremists."

Hows that?

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 14, 2006 11:21 PM

Great Comet:

"This is my real problem with the Catholic Church . . . the beauracacy!!!!! No wonder every war the church "led" was a disaster."

Oh, that's right; secular nations don't have beauracricies at all!

In all historical fairness, the failure of the Crusades (I assume that's what you're referring to) was the fault of the secular nations of Europe, not the Papacy (which for the most part was the only religious-political entity who grasped the true nature of the Muslim danger). Had Europe's monarchs been better Catholics, we would've got the job done a lon, long time ago. Spencer's most recent book contains a good discussion of this.

In any event, the question I asked Abu applies to you as well: Have you read the Daniel Pipes peace? Honestly, and realisitcally, what do you want to hear from the Pope on this matter?

We ought not to let some broad, stray remark by an outgoing Secretary of State cast aspersion on the Pope's otherwise excellent track record.

And finally, has it occured to anyone that there may be *some* legitimacy to the criticsm? From one article:

"Israeli air strikes beginning on July 12 have killed at least 60 Lebanese this week, and wounded more than 150. The strategic bombing struck at the infrastructure of the country: disabling power plants, destroying bridges, and severing major highways." {Source: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=45335}

Cardinal Sodano (and Pope Benedict) may well be justified in questioning whether Israel handled this as best they could. We may have our reasons to disagree, but the opposite opinion is not without merit.

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 11:21 PM

Abu Lahab

To: "Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in the Hungarian border area of Austria in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive."

You wrote: "Yes, he was fighting for the Nazis. Thank you for clarifying my point."

Obviously you have no military experience. Stacking sandbags and digging trenches is NOT fighting!

You also asked: "Are you claiming that somehow all those Cardinals were merely invoking "Romanism'"

All those Cardinals???? I don't see a single Cardinal in any of those photos. There are several monsignors and a couple of bishops. No Cardinals.

1. The bishop pictured with Hitler is Papal Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo. That's the Holy See's AMBASSADOR to Germany. Of course he met Hitler. There are photos of the US Ambassador to Germany meeting with Hitler. Does that make Franklin Roosevelt pro-Nazi?

The anti-religious website you link tries to make Hitler look religious by including a picture of him leaving the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven. What it doesn't mention is that this is a Lutheran Church, not Catholic, and Hitler was leaving after a funeral, not after attending to worship. Hitler considered Catholicism to be a Jewish invention and favoured a return to Nordic paganism. He also was strongly pro-Muslim, lamenting the fact that Germans had adopted "weak" Christianity insted of Islam.

The photo http://emperor.vwh.net/images/salute.jpg is wrongly labelled as "Priests give Hitler salute at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukolln stadium in August 1933." The outstreched arm salute predates Hitler and was used across continental Europe in the 1920s. This salute was not limited to nazis and fascists at the time. Also in August 1933, Hindenburg was still President and few people believed Hitler's government would last.

While some Catholics like Josef Tiso and a couple of infamous Croatian bishops sold out their faith for worldly power, the vast majority of Catholics stood against Nazism. I challenge you to read "MIT BRENNENDER SORGE" written by Pacelli and still tell me he was sympathetic to Nazism.

Pius XII personally saved un-counted thousands of Jews from the Nazis. For the real story, read Rabbi David Dalin's assessment of Pius as a Righteous Gentile at: http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 14, 2006 11:21 PM

To Abu and all the critics:

A more balanced Catholic critique of Israel's actions vis-a-vis Lebanon can be found here:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604006.htm

As well, the Popes have consistently supported the right of Israel to exist. In his Easter message, the Pope wrote:

"I also pray sincerely that those caught up in the conflict in the Holy Land may find peace, and I invite all to patient and persevering dialogue, so as to remove both ancient and new obstacles. May the international community, which re-affirms Israel’s just right to exist in peace, assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live and to build their future, moving towards the constitution of a state that is truly their own."

A nation with a right to exist obviously has a right to defend itself when that existence is threatened. This goes without saying.

We shouldn't read more into this "Vatican condemnation" than what's there. No one is denying Israel's right to defend itself; there is just criticism of how Israel carried out its offensive into Lebanon. And I think there just might be some merit in it. Could Israel have gone about it better? We can't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well. That's war." Real lives are at stake here; Israel's greatest critics should be Israel herself. And this is true of any nation that enters into a war.

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 14, 2006 11:38 PM

Vatican dhimmitude of the worst order.

But not at all surprising. The Vatican held off on establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Nation of Israel until 1994, concerned about the 'plight' of the Palestinians (boo-freaking-hoo), 46 years after Israel became a nation!

We can't look to the Vatican to stand up for Israel and/or against Islam, they sold out long ago. If you're not willing to stand up for what's right and expel the culture of pedophilia from your own house, then you are impotent in the battle between good and evil.

Posted by: infidel4life at July 14, 2006 11:54 PM

DominvsVobiscvm

I have several reasons why I dislike the Catholic Church and its set up against Islam. Its history is a best checkered.

(1) Sack of Constanople by the 4th crusade was blow for catholism..right!. That did more harm to european christian nations then anything the lame 1st, 2nd, and 3rd crusades accomplished. It weakened Constanople as a defensive barrier to Islamic invasion and put the finial nail in the coffin between eastern christians and the catholic church.

(2) Catholics waged war against other christians. Lets not forget the attacks on all other christians that did not buy the catholic churches line. How did this help the cause against Islamic expansion?

(3) Mongol Alliance. In the 1200s Mongols were on the verge of crushing arabic Islam as we know it. Time and time again the Mongols offered the Christians a chance to to join in the effort. I know that the Mongols were not the most trust worthy fellows and I know that Mongols had attacked christians many times and some Mongols were muslims. However in the light of history it would have been a better move then what we did do which was nothing. The Holy Land was there for the taking. The Catholic church was against this alliance.

In the end it was semi-secular and secular leaders who stopped the advance of Islam in Europe and in the end did more then the crusades ever accomplished. It was kings not popes who stopped the advance of turks into central europe. It was secular leaders who crushed the muslims in Egypt and Africa (I.e. French and British). It was secular Britian and the USA who defeated the North African Pirates not the Catholic church who was more busy paying them off then fighting them. It was yes in the end secular europe who won the holy land back from the muslim. It was western european secular technology not prayer that did this. Now I know secular nations have their problems (i.e. pc and yes they have beauracricies also) but they have shown in the past an ability to do something in war which theocracies fail to do and that is WIN.

Now you may ask why would a secular man or woman favor christians over muslims. It is simple...most christians have submitted to secular rule were as muslims have not. Thus they are enemies of secular rule and must be crushed.

Israel is doing something about this when will the Vatican do something. Stop worring about condoms and gays and worry about the man with the knife.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at July 15, 2006 12:17 AM

Can anyone explain to me why Jews are so universally hated by everyone? I just don't get it.

In one word; jealousy. People are jealous of their wealth (not all are wealthy, but most do quite well for themselves when allowed to). They are also brilliant scientists, inventors, musicians, writers, etc. in disporportion to their numbers when compared to other peoples. No, I am not Jewish, but I have many Jewish friends who are basically liberal and antagonistic to my values at times. They are no better than I am as they put their britches on one leg at a time just like I do. I do admire their achievments. They have contributed much to the advance of Western civilization in the world today.

Posted by: TexasInfidel at July 15, 2006 12:39 AM

infidel:

"The Vatican held off on establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Nation of Israel until 1994, concerned about the 'plight' of the Palestinians (boo-freaking-hoo), 46 years after Israel became a nation!"

The Church was right to exercise caution here, especially when there was a lot of question over whether Israel did have a right to the land it claimed. When new countries form there are a lot of thorny questions to be worked out vis-a-vis legitimacy and it's best for third-parties, particularly those of a spiritual nature, not to rush and take sides.

GreatComet:

Get your facts straight, buddy.

1) "Sack of Constanople by the 4th crusade"

Condemned by the Church. Next!

2) "Catholics waged war against other christians."

Against who exactly, during the period we're talking about? The Gnostic Albigensians?! Next!

3) "Mongol Alliance"

Approved by Pope Nicholas IV

Now whatcha got, buddy?

The Papcy's formative, and leading, role in calling for and organizing the Crusades over the centuries is so well-documented, and so easily accessible to anyone with an Encyclopedia (and Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)" that to debate it here is just stupid. Hell, it's the source of the typical anti-Catholic diatribe we're always hearing on this subject!

"Israel is doing something about this when will the Vatican do something."

What the Hell do you want the Holy See to do? Tell me, concretely. Be realistic: Nuke Iran and Syria?! C'mon!

Do the ends justify the means with regards to Israel's conduct in this war?

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 15, 2006 12:44 AM

greatcometof1577,

Certain historical facts need to be remembered. The Fourth Crusade should NOT be listed as a Crusade at all since they never fought a single Muslim. Although Pope Innocent called the crusade, it was hijacked by the "enlightened" (read anti-Catholic) Doge of Venice who desired to put his own candidate on the Throne of Byzantium.

After the Venetians sacked Constantinople, Pope Innocent III thundered against the crusaders thus: "You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".

Therefore this crime cannot be pinned on the Pope but rather on the greedy secular rulers who instigated it.

As for the failed opportunity for an alliance with the Mongols, this happened despite the best efforts of the Pope who ordered a number of Friars to be sent to Mongolia but they never made it. This is a great tragedy but it certainly wasn't the Vatican's fault.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 15, 2006 12:44 AM

"Stacking sandbags and digging trenches is NOT fighting!"

OK, technically he may not have shot aybody. Who cares. He gave material aid to the enemy. If a teenager is helping Hamas or Hezbollah "stack sandbags and dig trenches", he is still the enemy. The Cardinals made a huge mistake in picking Ratzinger and all Catholics will pay for it. NOBODY who was ever Hitler Youth should be pope. Period. It's embarrassing.

Also, you have not explained Ante Pavelic to me. Please explain it. I'm waiting.

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 15, 2006 12:53 AM

http://www.jasenovac.org/exhibits.php

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 15, 2006 12:58 AM

Abu:

So basically any Cardinal who was a kid under Mussolini and/or Hitler should be barred from Church offices? That's because under these regimes EVERY man within a certain age bracket was conscripted in the army. My parents are from Sicily. My dad's cousin, now in his 80s, as a boy in his teens was forced to put on the fascist uniform and do military exercises. He never had to fire a gun, and he hated Mussolini. He did not commit a single war crime. He served Italy's duly elected government insofar as this did not require immoral actions, and he's none the worse for it.

Ditto with Ratzinger. Quit talking out of your rear and think rationally.

I already explained why the young Ratzinger, a freakin' teenager when drafted in the German army against his will, and whose family (and Church!) were known anti-Nazis, was perfectly just in serving his country the way he did:

So what if he were fighting for Nazis? Hitler's was a duly elected government, and so in many respects perfectly legitimate. Individual Germans were therefore perfectly justified in limited service in the German government, particularly when they're just kids forcefully conscripted.

The early Church, following the lead of Jesus and the Apostles, allowed Christians to serve in the Roman army and ordered obedience to the Roman government (Romans 13 was written under Nero!); it was understood, however, that they were not to obeycommands which contradicted God's laws.

Ditto with regards to Germans and Nazi Germany. Is every German who payed taxes during those years implicated in the Nazi genocide? Not necessarily. Many people did what they could, and cooperated with the democratically elected regime to the extent that theycould do so with violating the moral law. Ratzinger was one of these, as were several Catholic prelates. They showed he obesiance due to the government while at the same trime criticizing the abuses. When Hitler's maniacal agenda became better well-known, such public gestures became rarer, and persecution of Catholics intensified.

You really ought to view the German film "The Ninth Day", based on a true story and solidly researched, to see just how anti-Catholic the Nazi Regime was, and how active was the Catholic resistance. See:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ninth_day/

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 15, 2006 1:01 AM

"Many people did what they could, and cooperated with the democratically elected regime..."

Pointless to argue with this stuff.

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 15, 2006 1:04 AM

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/063.shtml

To be fair to Ratzinger, Pope John Paul 2 was not much better on these types of issues, I'm afraid. Why was Stepinac beatified?

"He never criticized or condemned Croatian leader Franjo Tudjman, a known Holocaust denier and rabid anti-Semite and anti-Serb former Communist general. Tudjman denied that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. He maintained that 900,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust. He also called Israelis “Judeo-Nazis” who were carrying out a genocide against Palestinian Muslims. Tudjman also denied the genocide in Jasenovac, which he referred to as the “Jasenovac myth”.

Tudjman was a known racist who had plans to annex Bosnia-Hercegovina into a Greater Croatia. Yet John Paul was silent about Tudjman. He visited Croatia in 1994 during the civil war, thereby giving moral support to the Tudjman regime in its efforts to ethnically cleanse the Krajina Serbs. Pope John Paul had no sympathy for the aspirations of the Krajina Serbs. He rejected their goal of self-determination and autonomy. Pope John Paul showed his moral hypocrisy. All he ever cared about was the expansion of Roman Catholicism.

Beatified Ustasha Mass Murderer and Convicted War Criminal

On his second official papal visit to Croatia, he beatified a mass murderer and convicted war criminal with complicity in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Serbs, Jews, and Roma. On his 1998 visit to Croatia, Pope John Paul II beatified Croatian Archbishop Alojzije Stepinac at a huge open-air ceremony. The beatification occurred at the shrine of Marija Bistrica on October 3, 1998. This was meant to be a slap in the face of all Orthodox Serbs. It would be like the Nobel Prize Committee awarding Adolf Eichmann a posthumous Nobel Prize for Peace. The action demonstrated his total and profound contempt for the Serbian people and for the Orthodox religion. Beatification is the step prior to sainthood in Roman Catholicism. He was photographed praying at the glass-enclosed, embalmed body of Stepinac in Zagreb. Like with Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the body of Stepinac is preserved and embalmed in a class case in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Zagreb. "

Posted by: Abu Lahab at July 15, 2006 1:09 AM

"The Church was right to exercise caution here [in refusing to recognize the state of Israel in 1948, or for long after, especially when there was a lot of question over whether Israel did have a right to the land it claimed."
-- from a posting above

This comment ignores the three main reasons for withholding recognition from the Jewish state just a few years after the end of World War II, when everything that needed to be known about the death camps, and the role of many willing collaborators all over Europe, was known.

The first was the theological argument -- put paid to by John XXIII's Vatican II -- that the Jews should remain stateless as punishment for their supposed deicide. In other words, it was held by some right and proper that they should suffer. Vatican II helped change phrases learned by rote, including the business of the "perfidious Jews" which was certainly in the Spanish textbooks of the children in the family I lived with in Arguelles in 1967.

The second was the belief that as a worldly institution, the Catholic Church had nothing to fear from Jews, but a good deal to fear for its own position, and that of Catholics, in Arab and Muslim lands. And so it did, but the calculation was mistaken: it was the fact of being Christian, even if willing to behave immorally when it came to Israel, that caused the Catholic Church trouble. Had it remained firm in all ways, as it now appears to realize it must, vis-a-vis Muslims, it would have come out, in every sense, morally and practically, better.

The third is the power of the anti-Jewish lobby inside the Vatican,, represented in 1948 mainly by clergy who still saw Jews as a menace, who had no sympathy for what had happened to them, and some of whom actually helped war criminals escape, on the Rat Line, to South America. The behavior of some important church officials in both Slovakia, and in Croatia, during the war, as enthusiasts for what the Germans were doing to the Jews, should not be forgotten -- or if never known, should be committed to memory. And of course, many of those Arab churchmen at the Vatican had spent their entire lives parroting the Islamic line on Zionism and an Jewish (Infidel) state, with remarkable exceptions such as the Bishop of Beirut in 1947, Moubarac.

The very idea that there were "a lot of questions" when the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had set out so carefully exactly what had been intended, and when the Jewish settlers did nothing but buy land from local Arabs. Not a dunam was taken, until the Arabs attacked the nascent state of Israel. You may not realize it -- many do not -- but nearly 90% of the land of Western Palestine (from Jordan to the Mediterranean) is defined as "waste and state lands," and was the property of no one but the Ottoman government, and after that, of the British in their role as the Mandatory authority and successor to the Ottomans, and finally, became the property of the State of Israel as the intended beneficiary, of the Mandate for Palestine, and proper successor to the Mandatory authority.

It was unacceptable, morally, for anyone to question that, especially in 1948. And unacceptable ever since. Fortunately, the Church has changed its policy, and one can find in the Vatican today, along with the same Middle Eastern churchmen, or others who hold views that do not withstand scrutiny, a great many others who fully support Israel, and what's more, are keenly aware of the work of Bat Ye'or and the menace of Islam. After all, they have the same interests at this point, the same worries, the same enemies.

Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2006 1:09 AM

"The Church was right to exercise caution here [in refusing to recognize the state of Israel in 1948, or for long after, especially when there was a lot of question over whether Israel did have a right to the land it claimed."
-- from a posting above

This comment ignores the three main reasons for withholding recognition from the Jewish state just a few years after the end of World War II, when everything that needed to be known about the death camps, and the role of many willing collaborators all over Europe, was known.

The first was the theological argument -- put paid to by John XXIII's Vatican II -- that the Jews should remain stateless as punishment for their supposed deicide. In other words, it was held by some right and proper that they should suffer. Vatican II helped change phrases learned by rote, including the business of the "perfidious Jews" which was certainly in the Spanish textbooks of the children in the family I lived with in Arguelles in 1967.

The second was the belief that as a worldly institution, the Catholic Church had nothing to fear from Jews, but a good deal to fear for its own position, and that of Catholics, in Arab and Muslim lands. And so it did, but the calculation was mistaken: it was the fact of being Christian, even if willing to behave immorally when it came to Israel, that caused the Catholic Church trouble. Had it remained firm in all ways, as it now appears to realize it must, vis-a-vis Muslims, it would have come out, in every sense, morally and practically, better.

The third is the power of the anti-Jewish lobby inside the Vatican,, represented in 1948 mainly by clergy who still saw Jews as a menace, who had no sympathy for what had happened to them, and some of whom actually helped war criminals escape, on the Rat Line, to South America. The behavior of some important church officials in both Slovakia, and in Croatia, during the war, as enthusiasts for what the Germans were doing to the Jews, should not be forgotten -- or if never known, should be committed to memory. And of course, many of those Arab churchmen at the Vatican had spent their entire lives parroting the Islamic line on Zionism and an Jewish (Infidel) state, with remarkable exceptions such as the Bishop of Beirut in 1947, Moubarac.

The very idea that there were "a lot of questions" when the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had set out so carefully exactly what had been intended, and when the Jewish settlers did nothing but buy land from local Arabs. Not a dunam was taken, until the Arabs attacked the nascent state of Israel. You may not realize it -- many do not -- but nearly 90% of the land of Western Palestine (from Jordan to the Mediterranean) is defined as "waste and state lands," and was the property of no one but the Ottoman government, and after that, of the British in their role as the Mandatory authority and successor to the Ottomans, and finally, became the property of the State of Israel as the intended beneficiary, of the Mandate for Palestine, and proper successor to the Mandatory authority.

It was unacceptable, morally, for anyone to question that, especially in 1948. And unacceptable ever since. Fortunately, the Church has changed its policy, and one can find in the Vatican today, along with the same Middle Eastern churchmen, or others who hold views that do not withstand scrutiny, a great many others who fully support Israel, and what's more, are keenly aware of the work of Bat Ye'or and the menace of Islam. After all, they have the same interests at this point, the same worries, the same enemies.

Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2006 1:11 AM

Can anyone explain to me why Jews are so universally hated by everyone? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 14, 2006 04:50 PM

I wish I could explain that to you but I don't understand it myself, although I have spent countless hours attempting to solve the mystery. Personally, I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Jewish people, and I am very grateful for their invaluable contributions to science, medicine, and the arts.

I believe that Jews are envied and often despised because they are smart, successful, hard-working, and indefatigible. Less industrious people, like languid muslims, resent their wealth and power although it is acquired legitimately through hard work, frugality, and perserverance. Muslims see themselves as the rightful rulers of the world and heirs to all its wealth and resources. Compared to the Palestinian territories, Israel is Heaven on earth and thus the focus of contempt and intense resentment to the lowly savages next door. Their natural inclination is to destroy all that is clean, modern, and democratic and to blame their self-inflicted misery on the Jews.

Jews were often viewed as outsiders who couldn't be trusted wherever they settled, and there were the ubiqiutous religious conflicts initiated by self-righteous Christians. The Christian persecution of Jews, although now officially condemned by all Christian denominations, spanned centuries. Today's Christians would just as soon forget these shameful injustices, but Jews never will.

The muslim hatred for Jews is ancient and enduring, and precedes Israel. While muslims hate all non-muslims, their hatred of Jews exceeds all other. I believe it is because the Jews were the first to refuse Muhammad's ridiculous "religion", which marked them for eternal muslim wrath. The Qur'an singles out Jews for extraordinary hate and muslims follow it to the letter. They must wonder why allah bestowed their mortal enemies with superior stamina, fortitude, intelligence, and resources. Testing them maybe?

Posted by: Susanp at July 15, 2006 1:19 AM

DominvsVobiscvm:

Read your Bible Brother. God gave Israel their homeland thousands of years ago, then removed them from it twice because of their sin. But yet in His mercy He promised to return them again to their homeland and establish them as a nation, which happened in 1948. Prophesy fulfilled for all who have eyes to see. If the folks at the Vatican would actually READ their Bibles, they just might recognize what God has done and is doing in the land of Israel today. But no, they are blind to it, to their own detriment.

Posted by: infidel4life at July 15, 2006 1:27 AM

Abu:

The Nazis were democratically elected. What's there to argue about that? It's a fact.

To you think every German who paid their taxes to the regime during those years is implicated in genocide? What about Christians who served in the pagan Roman Empire?

Regarding Blessed Aloysius Stepinac, I suggest you do some research to get the full story:

http://www.hr/darko/etf/stepinac.html

Yeah, he was a convicted war criminal . . . convicted by the Communists!

Hugh:

I note that you did not back any of your statements with documentable fact.

While it's always been Church teaching that the Jews no longer have a God-given right to the Holy Land (the Church condemns Zionism as heretical), it does not follow from this that the Jews would never be able to establish a natural-law claim to their own territory, the way other nations do. The Church's hesitancy to recognize Israel was because she did not want to seem to endorse the Zionism new taught by many modern Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants.

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 15, 2006 1:34 AM

Infidel:

Now we're getting into the subject of Biblical interpretation, which is not appropriate discussion for this message board.

Suffice it to say that orthodox Christianity has always held that the Jews lost their *divine* right to Palestine with their rejection of the Messiah and that the Church is the New Israel, and that this New Israel is a supre-temporal society whose Promised Land is in Heaven.

There is a minority of Protestants who through their private interpretation of the Bible have cooked-up novel doctrines contary to the Christian tradition, and you're free to believe them. Far be it from me to critique it on here. But surely you realize how ludicrous it is for the rest of the world to acede to Israel's right to exist on the basis of religious argument alone.

NOTE: I do not deny the right of Israel to exist; I just deny such a right on religious grounds, i.e. on the grounds that this land is destined to them by God.

Posted by: DominvsVobiscvm at July 15, 2006 1:39 AM

"Infidel:

Now we're getting into the subject of Biblical interpretation, which is not appropriate discussion for this message board.

Suffice it to say that orthodox Christianity has always held that the Jews lost their *divine* right to Palestine with their rejection of the Messiah and that the Church is the New Israel, and that this New Israel is a supre-temporal society whose Promised Land is in Heaven."

1st, who are you to say what is appropriate to discuss on this board?

2nd, since when does your interpretation of what "orthodox Christianity" has (or hasn't) believed in the past have any bearing on how current day Christians choose to interpret the Scriptures?

Of course there is a so-called historical "orthodox" "Christian" view about Israel. Guess what - it's bullshit.

I don't give a flying f*ck about how Academia has represented Church history. Do you actually think that what you have been taught about the Church is the absolute truth?

I say again: Read Your Bible Brother! Forget what you've "learned" in secular religion classes! Throw away your pre-conceived notions of theology and seek out what God says about Israel.

May your eyes be opened.

Posted by: infidel4life at July 15, 2006 2:12 AM

to DominvsVobiscvm

Dear catholic. The web site You posted above is made by some croat who ovbiously just wish to portray croatians as best as possyble from every possible aspect. I was on his web site yesterday by completelly different reasons (searching on a datas of greatest serbian scientist Nikola Tesla), and I saw how that site is completely pjedudicet and partial. I am a serb and I accept responsibility of my nation for some bad things which was done to a catholics (specialy in recent history), but I belive that its also nedeed to be done by a catholic church (in our serbian cases specialy on issue of Stepinac). So far I know Stepinac never said anything against nazis before Hitlers demise on Staljingrad. And somehow its a strange that church declare him as as saint with knowledge of that. On the other hand, serbian patriarch spend his time (althogether with few other bishops) in WW2 in concentration camp of Dahau, and he is not still claimed to be saint by anyone. few other bishops and numerous monks and preasts were killed by same croatian government (blessed by Stepinac and like). Generaly catholic church in Croatia during war act comletely different than Catholic church in Frace or Poland. Thats paintfull for You, but its true, like manu other things. Still I hope that christian love will help us find some common language through time. At least that love will be better bond than muslim hatered toward all of us.

Posted by: svemirko at July 15, 2006 2:41 AM

I'm afraid my own country's church, The Church of England, is as bad as the Roman Catholics - or worse.

Here is what Rowan Williams, the Archdruid of Canterbury, says with respect to the Mumbai bombings:

"People of all faiths and none will be joining together over the coming days to deplore the violence and remember those who have died, the injured and those who have lost loved ones."

"All faiths"? All of them? oh, really? It's true that Pakistan, an Islamic country, did "join together" (whatever that is supposed to mean) to "deplore the violence" but since her secret service's fingerprints are all over the atrocity that deploring should not be taken at face value.

Did Dr. Williams not notice that responsibility for these bombings - and for various earlier outrages - lies with the adherents of one particular "faith"? Did he not notice that the bombings were carried out to advance the interests of one particular "faith"? Or is it just that he preferred not so say?

This is lying by omission, and lying by attempting to mislead. Compare this deceit with what W.E. Gladstone, as keen a churchman as Williams one imagines, said about Turkish atrocities in the 19th century.

If Rowan Williams can't tell the truth, he should say nothing.

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 15, 2006 4:58 AM

I hope you don't mind but I sent this to The Holy Father, more so because of all the reactions of the comments which I think are important for him to see. I also included to him my grave concern and that in the light of reality, Israel and the Christians of Lebanon are only reacting in a manner towards this present evil at hand.

PJ

Posted by: PJ at July 15, 2006 5:58 AM

If the Vatican was so anti Nazi, why did Italy (chock full o' Catholics) go Nazi? Was the Pope giving his speaches up his sleeve or are you rewriting history?

Posted by: scooter at July 15, 2006 8:46 AM

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into "a conflict with international repercussions."

Gosh oh gee those mean old Jews are at it again. When is the world going to quit listening to these fools like the Pope and a few others and open there eyes to what is really happening. I pray that the IDF is left alone to do there job so that they can end this once and for all, maybe then the world would get off Israels back and see that all they want to do is be left alone.

Posted by: Pastor Bill at July 15, 2006 9:24 AM

For those of you who want to make this into a theological argument regarding the validity of Catholicism, but are sincere in your desire to know the truth, please check these links out and read them over.

I have read quite a bit of anti-Catholic garbage on this thread. If you have been listening to the tired old anti-Catholic rhetoric, you will find plenty of information to answer all your questions at these links.

Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture

http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/magisterial/principlesinterp.cfm

Catholicism and the Bible

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9706/articles/williamson.html

Bible Interpretation
http://www.salvationhistory.com/mission/staff/Hull_Venues.pdf

Catholicism
http://www.salvationhistory.com

I say again: Read Your Bible Brother! Forget what you've "learned" in secular religion classes! Throw away your pre-conceived notions of theology and seek out what God says about Israel.

Since you seem to be an expert on Biblical interpretation and the Old Testament, I suggest you pick up the book

"Reading the Old Testament- An Introduction" by Lawrence Boadt.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809126311/qid=1152989807/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7981067-8299308?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

And this book by former Protestant Theologian Scott Hahn.

Rome Sweet Home

http://www.getfed.com/displayproduct.cfm?JP=1001011

If you sincere in knowing the Truth, you will learn a thing or two. But since you seem to think you are the final word on scripture interpretation, you may know it all already.

Posted by: adobe at July 15, 2006 3:06 PM

I have to say I am a fan of this Pope Benedict, and not because I am Catholic. Prior to popehood he was one of the most prolific writers in Europe (maybe the world) on the evils of relativism and multiculturalism as they have infected Europe (leaving the vacuum that Islam has march into), on democracy, on truth,on freedom, etc., all items of at least tangential interest to this group, if not central in some areas. Check out these little books: "Without Roots - The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam (with Marcella Pera)", "Values in a Time of Upheaval", "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures", among others. He has a keen sense of European history, how it all relates, and does not whitewash the church's pask mistakes or the nazis.

As for soft on Islam, Benedict has been a leader in opposing entry of Turkey into the EU. He "gets it", whereas Bush, Rice and the EU-cabal do not.

I agree with a poster above that anything he says as pope must take into account the risk to Christians in lands where they could face Muslim attacks.

I would also accept another poster's view above that the comment of this secretary of state was likely his own liberal opinion and not Benedict's. That just does not fit with his previous writings (although I have not seen anything in writing specifically on Israel

This pope is one of the good guys. Viva il Papa!

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at July 15, 2006 4:08 PM

Greetings and blessings to all. My name is Very Rev. Fr. Gregori and I am an ordained priest of the American Orthodox Catholic Church. I must say that I am very disappointed in the statement from the Roman Catholic Church out of the Vatican, and of those here in the US, especially those who profess to be Christians and Jews, who keep calling for Israel to show restraint and to back off. None of those who are quick to blame Israel and call for Israel to show restraint, including the Vatican, have said one word against the actions taken by Hezzbola and Hammas. Why? I believe that it is due to the political correctness mentality that makes it wrong to speak out against the evil Muslim extremists.

I am NOT blaming all Muslims, as I know that there are many wonderful Muslims. As a teenager, I had the great pleasure to visit the Holy Land and Beruit, along with the city of Baalbeck. Since I am of Lebanese decent on my father's side, I felt it great honor to visit the homeland of some of my ancestors. This was back before the Six Day War, and I was awed to see how well the Lebanese Christians (Melkites and Maronites, etc.) and the various Muslim sects got along.

I was saddened when the Lebanese civil war broke out, to see how the Syrian backed Hezzbola group helped to destroy Lebanon. I can only hope and pray that the Israeli military can help rid this beautiful country of the Hezzbola menace, with as little if any harm to the Lebanese people and their country.

Holy Scripture tells us :"I will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel." We are also admonished to pray for Israel. I pray for Israel daily and for the people of Lebanon. I pray that all of the peace loving people of the Middle east would rise up and put an end to the Muslim Fundamentalist extremists, who only believe in killing and enslaving those who do not believe as they do.

God bless and be with you the people of Israel and with you the people of Lebanon. And I urge the people of Lebanon to demand that their government rise up and help Israel to over-throw and cast out the Hezzbola elements from your land.

"Abouna" Gregori

Posted by: "Abouna" Gregori at July 15, 2006 9:02 PM

Wow........all these people ripping on the Catholic Church, it's amazing! If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, we'd be talking about Allah right now. All the anti-Catholics and Protestants need to settle down and be grateful for what the Church has done. In addition to that name me an institution or your local church that has probably only been around for the last 500 hundred years max, what are they doing to solve the problem> You guys can argue all day, how about praying?
Pray Globally
Act Locally
Chris

Posted by: Ironman at July 17, 2006 2:51 AM

The American Orthodox Catholic Church is a schism to the Catholic Church, I pray that someday you'll come to your senses and comeback home.

Posted by: Ironman at July 17, 2006 5:10 PM

US_infidel,

There are Maronite Catholics who live outside of Lebanon.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 20, 2006 12:09 PM