The Archbishop of Toulouse, Robert Le Gall, has weighed in on Macron’s defense of freedom of expression and the subsequent world-wide Muslim rage against him. And the Archbishop, instead of supporting Macron, and that freedom that the French hold dear, has come down on the side of thin-skinned, murderous Muslims. The story is here: “Prophet Muhammad cartoons ‘an insult to Muslims and Christians alike’, French archbishop says,” Rahnuma Daily, November 1, 2020; Robert Spencer made some brief remarks on it here.
A French archbishop has warned of the dangers of publishing offensive cartoons, noting there are limits to freedom of expression amid renewed tensions between France and the Muslim world.
We all know the dangers of offending Muslims. We’ve heard about, and some have seen, the severed head of Samuel Paty that his killer displayed on social media. We remember the killings at Charlie Hebdo. Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of the magazine, knew exactly the danger he was running in publishing cartoons of Muhammad that would offend Muslims, but he wanted to defend the imperiled freedom of expression and explained that he preferred to “die standing rather than live on my knees.” Archbishop Le Gall is altogether different from “Charb.” He’s a profile In cowardice. He’s ready to yield, quite content to genuflect before his new Muslim masters.
The Archbishop of Toulouse Robert Le Gall said he opposed the publishing of caricatures insulting Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, saying “there are limits to freedom of speech”.
Yes, there are “limits to freedom of speech,” but they are not the limits Archbishop Le Gall has in mind. In France, making fun of religious figures is not among these limits. The expression of murderous hatred, the incitement to violence, is not protected by freedom of expression. The only limits to freedom of speech in the Western world are about hate speech (e.g., antisemitic or racist hate speech) and calls for immediate violence or, in the American constitutional context, “imminent lawless violence” (in American constitutional law, this is known as the Brandenburg test, from a 1969 Supreme Court case).
But neither Samuel Paty, nor President Macron, expressed any hatred or incited violence against Muslims. The only people – hasn’t the Archbishop Le Gall noticed? — who have been spewing out hatred, calling for the murder of others, even for the mass murder of tens of millions of French people, are the Muslims themselves. Charlie Hebdo wanted to make fun of the figure of Muhammad, as it had in the past made fun of Jesus and Moses without incident. Twelve people, nine of them the paper’s cartoonists, were murdered by Muslim fanatics, the Kouachi brothers, who didn’t think anyone anywhere had a right to make fun of Muhammad. Samuel Paty only wanted to discuss several of those Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the context of a middle school class on freedom of expression; he was solicitous of the feelings of his Muslim students and suggested they might want to leave the classroom during this particular part of the discussion. He was not endorsing those cartoons, but using them as a point of departure for a discussion of freedom of expression. For using the Muhammad cartoons, in class, he was decapitated by a Muslim fanatic, Abdoulakh Anzorov. What will this mean for future classes to be given in French schools on freedom of expression? Will the teachers dare to endanger themselves by using materials that Muslims might find offensive? The Muslims will have won in their war over “limits to freedom of expression,” if enough people agree with Archbishop Le Gall’s craven capitulation.
Archbishop Le Gall no doubt blames the cartoonists for their own deaths; they didn’t respect the “limits to freedom of expression” that Islam had set and that he thinks the rest of us should observe, for otherwise we’d only be causing trouble. We are the ones who are responsible for the violence by Muslims, not the Muslims themselves, who are only exhibiting what Archbishop Le Gall thinks is a perfectly understandable reaction. Paty was at fault for choosing to use Muhammad cartoons as part of his classroom discussion; he ought to have been more careful not to offend Muslim sensibilities. Why? Because otherwise they might come to kill you, which is what happened to Samuel Paty. Archbishop Le Gall thinks French Infidels have got to limit their freedom of expression whenever it might offend Muslims. In the land of the Rights of Man, don’t exercise some of those rights – of speech, of expression, of conscience – as you did before. Now it’s time to avoid trouble. Get with the program. Do what the Muslims demand.
“These are considered an insult to Muslims and Christians alike and they should not be spread further. We all see their results,” he said in comments to France Bleu radio station, according to an Arabi21 report.
Archbishop Le Gall is making things up: how are the cartoons of Muhammad “an insult to Christians”? Does he know of any Christians – other than his timorous self – who find those cartoons insulting? After the Charlie Hebdo killings, hundreds of thousands of French people came out to protest against those who killed the cartoonists; no one proclaimed that he (or she) had felt “insulted” by the cartoons. The Archbishop’s pusillanimity, in the face of Muslim threats, has been dressed up by him as a thoughtful Christian cleric’s “sharing of the pain” felt by Muslims over a putative insult to the Prophet. He can’t explain the real reason for his latest statement: he’s terrified.
The latest attempts by Muslims to scare the French into abandoning their right of free expression began with demands for the firing of Paty — the principal refused — and of an apology by the school’s principal for Paty’s use of the Muhammad cartoons. This, too, was refused. After Paty’s beheading, when Macron delivered his stout defense of freedom of expression, things escalated, with Muslims worldwide, including the leaders of Turkey, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, calling for a boycott of French goods. This then became a call for the mass murder of the French. First, former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamed claimed that Muslims would be well within their rights, given how the French had treated Muslims, to kill “millions” of them. And then a Pakistani cleric went Mohamed one better: in a video posted on his official YouTube channel, the politician and Islamic scholar Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi called on the Pakistani government to declare Jihad against “those who slander the Prophet Muhammad” in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons affairs. He demanded that Pakistan use nuclear weapons: “Today, France is challenging you [the government of Pakistan]. Why have you kept the tenth atom bomb hidden? Use that atom bomb. Use that atom bomb. Declare a Jihad. Let everyone [in France] die.” Apparently Archbishop Le Gall was unperturbed by these Muslim threats of mass deaths; what worried him was the French spirit of resistance, given voice by Macron, to Muslim attempts to make France abandon the freedom of expression whenever Muslims might claim to feel “insulted.”
“There are limits to freedom of expression and we should realise that we do not have the right to insult religions,” he added.
No, Archbishop Le Gall, you are wrong. In the advanced West, the West of the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we do have the right to “insult” religions. Any and all of them. We don’t have the right to call for the murder of people of various religions, nor to incite other kinds of violence against them. But we can criticize or mock their ideology, their holy books, their central figures. This is protected speech.
If Pope Francis were not himself so confused and compromised in his understanding of Islam – he has assured us all that “authentic Islam has nothing to do with violence,” a remark that dozens of Qur’anic verses, and 1,400 years of violent Jihad, flatly contradict – perhaps he would discipline the Archbishop of Toulouse. One hopes that Le Gall’s fellow clerics in France will take issue with his remarks; they should not let them pass unanswered. These clerics should now make it a point to celebrate and praise Macron’s stout defense of free speech, in a pointed rebuke to Archbishop Le Gall.
The limits to freedom of expression in the Western world are not, despite the craven insistence of Archbishop Le Gall, to be set by those hypersensitive, hysterical, and murderous Muslims who think they have a right to dictate their own rules of behavior to the world, rules which include not ever making fun of the Prophet Muhammad, who must be treated by everyone with the greatest respect – or else boycotts, murder, and even mass murder may be the result and, if so – according to many Muslims and also to the capitulationist Archbishop Le Gall, it will be the Infidels’ own fault.
mortimer says
What would Robert Le Gall have said about France under Hitler? Would he have been a Nazi collaborator?
What Robert Le Gall probably doesn’t understand is how much the Koran, hadiths and Islamic writers hate Christianity. Some Eastern church clergy should clue him in, if Le Gall is open to learning something.
Many Christian clergy today have correct instincts about Islam (i.e. they are Islamo-skeptics), but very few clergy have actually taken the time to understand how bad the situation is.
For the last 200 years, France has had a strong tradition of anti-clericalism. If the RCC may be criticized, then surely Islam may also be criticized.
Mitch Kumstein says
Live on your knees……………………???
Rufolino says
In this matter, don’t overlook the importance of ambition.
The Catholic Church is full of ambitious people, many of them narcissists, who want to “rise” in their profession (which in this sense, is like any other profession.)
A priest who doesn’t want to be made a bishop is rare.
This Archbishop might, understandably, have his eye on a Cardinal’s hat.
In which case he will be obliged to cut his views to suit the current Pope, who personally chooses Cardinals. He will be absolutely aware of the Pope’s political position.
The Papacy is the last remaining old-fashioned monarchy, where the king’s favour is your ticket to power, respect, social glory, and fancy clothes.
Ray Jarman says
Mortimer,
What do you think would happen if someone filmed a movie like “The Life of Brian?” Most Christians actually liked the film even though it made fun of the Cross and the agony of Christ.
mortimer says
Ray, ‘feelings’ have nothing to do with Sharia law. The Sharia blasphemy law tells Muslims what they have to do: assassinate the blasphemer.
The ‘feelings’ part of Islam is called ‘gheira’ … a ‘protective’ jealousy and rage that Muslims are required to stir up whenever Islam is threatened.
Islam has a doctrine of RELIGIOUS RAGE called ‘gheira’ or ‘gheera’ or ‘ghira’.
Prideful rage is a good thing in Islam, because it is a trait of Mohammed and Allah. Western people see it as a ‘madness’, but prideful rage is normative Islam, rather than an aberration. All Muslims are required to show prideful rage towards the dirty kufaar.
The ‘craziness’ of jihadists is not a pathology, but ‘assumed’ craziness, since it is acquired artificially by their imitation of a certifiable lunatic, Mohammed.
Phil Copson says
“What Robert Le Gall probably doesn’t understand is how much the Koran, hadiths and Islamic writers hate Christianity….”
———————————————————————————————————
What he definitely understands is that speaking up for free speech, Christianity, and Western civilisation might lead to him getting his throat cut – so he doesn’t.
mgoldberg says
I note this action from the UN General Assembly yesterday: “Some 140 United Nations member states on Wednesday voted in favor of a resolution that whitewashed the Jewish people’s connection, both past and present, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. During a session of the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee in New York, seven “pro-Palestinian” motions were passed, including one that only referred to Judaism’s holiest site – where the two biblical temples once stood – by its Islamic name, the al-Haram al-Sharif.”
So just to make that clear- the two Temples, which are historically, archeologically, and theologically verified and of utmost important to the the Jewish people and Judaism, are smeared by public declaration. And that smearing has never caused one muslim to be slaughtered- because that would be monstrous. Just as slaughtering that teacher who taught a class about freedom of speech issues was slaugthered by a muslim homicidist was indeed monstrous.
Ray Jarman says
+1
As anti-Semitic as FDR was, I don’t think he would have agreed with the UN over the provable and valid claims of the Jewish State that David’s and Solomon’s temples are are verifiable.
Ken Doncaster says
And the Catholic Church wonders why people are leaving in droves with weak kneed bishops like this taking showers with this false violent anti Christian anti Catholic anti Semetic death cult. The testicles of the leaders of Catholicism seem to have been completely removed.
Crusader 666 says
Couldnae said ut better meself!
Brando says
“We do NOT have the RIGHT to insult religions”,the Archibishop said.
1. I disagree,if the religion (Islam) is AGAINST human rights,and Even If it is Not,we do have that right:Freedom of Speech.
2. That is why I,as an Agnostic, emphasize KNOWLEDGE. When I began learning French,I decided,to practice,to read the NT in French. It was My First Time Reading the NT. So I learned,how
IGNORANT I was of the DEBT and the Influence concepts in the NT have in creating the Modern Socialist,Communist,Radical,
Classical Liberal,Progressive EMPHASIS on HUMAN RIGHTS.
RECAPITAULATION
I had already written that Jesus of Nazareth stated the Golden Rule( basis of Human Rights) in
MATTHEW 7:12 (Sermon on the MOUNT, even calling it “the LAW (of God ) and the PROPHETS “)
and in LUKE 6:31 ( Sermon on the PLAIN )
IT REAPPEARS LATER MORE IN THE NT
The GOLDEN RULE/ LAW of RECIPROCITY is NOT just stated by Jesus of Nazareth,but appears written down by his Followers, and they give it 5 TITLES:
1.Law of GOD
2.Law of the MESSIAH/ CHRIST
3.The PERFECT Law
4.The ROYAL or KINGLY Law
5.The Law of LIBERTY / FREEDOM
After Jesus the TOP 3 LEADERS of the Jesus Movement were 3 Jewish men:Peter ( Simon) and Paul ( Saul ) and James ( Jacob ).
DEFINITION OF THE WORD “LAW”
That words appears and appears in the NT,it is defined as:
“You will love your neighbor as yourself.”” (LEV 19:18)
A. PAUL defines it as:
GALATIANS 5:14
“For the WHOLE LAW is FULFILLED in one word:
“You will love your neighbor as yourself.”” (LEV 19:18)
AND ALSO IN:
ROMANS 13:8-10
“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, “You will not commit adultery,”
“You will not murder,”
“You will not steal,” “You will not covet,”
and whatever other command there may be, are SUMMED UP in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Love does no harm to a neighbor.
Therefore LOVE is the FULFILLMENT of the LAW.”
B. JAMES ( half-brother of Jesus ) says:
JAMES 2:8
“If you really fulfill the ROYAL LAW according to SCRIPTURE:
“You will love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.”
NOW THAT WE HAVE THE DEFINITION
One can better understand the following:
1 CORINTHIANS 9:21
“To those who are without LAW, as without law,
though not being without the LAW of GOD but under the LAW of CHRIST,
so that I might win those who are without law.”
JAMES 1:25
“But one who looks intently at the PERFECT LAW ,
the LAW of LIBERTY,
and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.”
mortimer says
Agree. Robert Le Gall is wrong. We DEFINITELY have the right to insult religions.
France has a vigorous ANTI-CLERICAL tradition of insulting the RCC. The French above all others will never surrender their right to INSULT RELIGION … a right going back to Voltaire.
gravenimage says
If you really hate human rights, you should love Islam.
And no–Communism is *not* about human rights–they just pay lip service to it.
And true human rights do not demand that one bows to savagery–just the opposite, in fact.
Brando says
Yes,Daniel,of The Muslim Skeptic,has written,in his website,Several Essays against Human Rights.
1. I remember a LOT of people in Europe and even the US were Communists or sympathetic to it from 1848 to 1945 because they REALLY believed Communism was SCIENTIFIC,
that MARX had PROVED it,Communism was Inevitable in his book DAS KAPITAL(1867 )
(the foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics by Karl Marx.) And the inevitablity of a PARADISE on EARTH.
2.They believed in the Possible Creation of the NEW MAN: one who would be all-out ALTRUISTIC.
Lavéritétriomphera says
On s’en fout, times are over when the Catholic Church made the laws in France. The French Islamic scholars should take a lesson from that.
Brando says
Sometimes Christians are accused of being Arrogant in the sense of saying the NT has made Western Civilization Unique. The Leftists by that mean OTHER civilizations could have created the HUMAN RIGHTS tradition as well.
Human Rights is based on the Golden Rule.
THE NT ALSO CALLS THE LAW…..THE NATURAL LAW
That means DIVINE INSPIRATION is NOT Necessary to arrive at the Golden Rule concept,it appears in:
1.CONFUCIUS (in the ANALECTS: collection of Sayings of Confucius)
2.The MAHABHARATA (Hindu epic and Holy Book)
3.The BUDDHA’s CONCEPT of COMPASSION
4.GREEK and ROMAN philosophers stated it.
PAUL ON THE NATURAL
Paul had said LAW is “Love your Neighbor like Yourself” (Golden Rule)
ROMANS 2:14-15
“For whenever the GENTILES
who do not have the law,
do by NATURE
the things REQUIRED by the LAW,
these who do not have the law are a law to themselves.
They show that the WORK of the LAW is WRITTEN in their HEARTS, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them.”
SO IN EFFECT
The NT gives 6 TITLES to “Love your neighbor like yourself”
1.Law of GOD
2.Law of the MESSIAH/ CHRIST
3.The PERFECT Law
4.The ROYAL or KINGLY Law
5.The Law of LIBERTY / FREEDOM
6.The NATURAL Law
Val says
Uneducated and completely ignorant of Islam, same as Pope Francis. These men are not theologians, they are well paid politicians.
Paul Wheeler says
“For using the Muhammad cartoons, in class, he was decapitated by a Muslim fanatic, Abdoulakh Anzorov.”
Since when is normative Islam practiced only by fanatics?
Even Robert Spencer falls prey to the “fanatic” Muslim hoax.
There are genuine Muslims and there are hypocrite MINOs (Muslims in Name Only). Both are Muslims. One is obedient and truly submits. The other does not.
Charlie in NY says
Can there be any greater insult to any religion than it being held in contempt and its theology considered false by another religion? Doesn’t that, to a large extent, describe Islam view of both Christianity and Judaism? Would Archbishop Le Gall consider offensive a cartoon of Jesus off the cross making fun of his disciples for believing him to have been resurrected and Son of God? Would it make any difference to him if the cartoon appeared in Charlie Hebdo or was made by a Muslim? I suspect that the good Archbishop’s actual goal is to outlaw any use of images Christian hold dear by hiding behind Muslims who will react violently (where no Christian would). After all, once you create the principle that Islam cannot be blasphemed, on what basis does this prohibition not immediately extend to all religions?
Besides, the framing of this conversation strikes me as based on a false premise. I don’t believe it is quite right to describe what Charlie Hebdo does as engaging in gratuitous insult. I think they are engaged in the French tradition of satire, mixed in with our current more expansive views on freedom of expression. The point of the satire it seems to me is straightforward political comment – mostly because it is the jihadists themselves who invoke Allah as the motivating factor for their terror. Thus it is fair comment to link him with violence or solicit his reaction, so to speak, to this linkage. As to other drawings, they provide social commentary of the cartoonist’s judgment about the depths of certain people’s credulity or, in the case of the recent one with Erdogan, hypocrisy or self-aggrandizement..
It needs to be said that it would make no difference at all to the Muslim reaction if the cartoonists were a bit more circumspect, polite or subtle in getting their message across. It is the mere fact of drawing a turbaned figure labeled “Mohammed” that constitutes the blasphemy. The message sought to be expressed by the cartoon is quite irrelevant, and that would still be the case if the drawing were of a triumphant Mohammed illustrating a story straight out of the Qur’an.
I suppose it is sadly consistent that the people who cannot abide the Western principle of “When in Rome do as the Romans do” are the same who fail to head the wisdom of the caution we are all taught as children, “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me”. Come to think of it, Generation Woke suffers too from these debilities. That, however, is no excuse for making yourself incapable of navigating the world with a mature adult’s sensibility.
gravenimage says
Le Gall has protested those poking fun at Christianity:
“Jesus play Golgota Picnic angers Christians in France”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15752989
My guess is that he considers Muslims to be potential allies in shutting down “blashemy”–and likely has no idea that Muslims not just slander Christianity but also *murder Christians*.
This play sounds pretty stupid, but has every right to be performed.
Prof andrew michael says
Offensive to Christians? I do not think so, I do not find it insulting or offensive at all. As a man of the cloth you are a disgrace to Jesus and all his followers.
GreekEmpress says
So tired of the church hierarchy that goes along with this drivel.
From what I have learned studying here and from other sources is that maybe only 10% of Muslims don’t believe in taking innocent life. The rest are murderous, illiterate, thugs who will listen to any madman claiming to be an “Imam” and go off on a jihad at the drop of a hat.
The RCC better wake up. 90% of those Neanderthals are out to get us. Maybe more.
Not very good odds.
mortimer says
How did such a shallow thinker get a job as an archbishop?
Part of the job of a cleric should be to support the freedom of conscience and to encourage it, rather than silence people’s conscience.
The archbishop confuses POLITE MANNERS as a civic duty.
Sometimes we must strongly disagree with people to make our point … it’s a matter of conscience.
I may be polite in disagreement with others personally, but that is not the same as fighting a totalitarian ideology such as Islam.
Islam is not ‘polite’ in disagreement with the dirty kufaar … the opposite. Muslims around the world are currently calling for our mass extermination.
It’s time to speak out against Islam so that Muslims realize we will not back down in defending freedom.
Le Gall doesn’t speak for thinking Christians.
somehistory says
These are considered an insult to Muslims and Christians alike”
NO! They are NOT “an insult to …Christians.” Christians are not offended or insulted when cartoons labeled as the mass-murdering, raper of children, lying son of satan are drawn and published. Christians know the necessity of speaking the Truth…even when it is taken as an insult by others who have a different belief.
The Apostle Paul asked, “How will they hear without someone to preach?”
Jesus Christ said to “teach” and that the “Good news of the Kingdom would be preached in all of the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations.” This has to include where moslims live and it must include talking about Jesus Christ, The Son of the Living God, to moslims…who will be insulted. Just saying that Jesus is God’s Son gets Christians killed in moslim countries or countries where there are rabid moslims lusting for blood.
moslims are insulted by just about everything. If it is not labeled with an approved word from their filthy book, they are insulted to see it, hear it, taste it, think about it, know that other people are seeing, hearing, tasting or thinking it.
They are just as incensed if someone tears their book, burns their book, says they will do this, eats a pork product or drinks alcohol. They get in a rage when it’s their time to gorge all night and do without eating during the day…if someone they work with, live near, or just see is eating or even just drinking water, during the daytime. It’s all “insults” and “offensive” and causes “hurt feelings.”
This clergyman is a fool, a liar and doesn’t know his right hand from his left. He should not be attempting to speak for Christians. He has no clue how True Christians feel about what “insults” moslims.
I have lived all of my life attempting to follow Christ, to live as a Christian. I have learned that if something “offends” or “insults” or “hurts the feelings” of moslims, its either the thing I ****must**** do or it won’t hurt anyone if I do it. On the other hand, if moslims ***do*** something, are ***commanded*** to do something, those are the things I learned as a child that I should never, ever, be doing.
To point this out to them, is an insult…to them. Don’t care, I say. It must be pointed out and as often as possible in as many places as possible for as long as islam exists.
Tom says
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last” Winston Churchill. There are many who are willing to appease the Islamists in the Catholic religion. Including their fake Pope.
don vito says
aztec, mayan, moloch, baal, what ever don’t insult their gods, prophets, or beliefs, everybody is happy.
gravenimage says
Yep…
gravenimage says
Archbishop Le Gall Genuflects to Islam
……………..
What a dhimmi tool.
Here is a good article, which also quotes Robert Spencer:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/prelate-vs-president-bishop-bows-to-muslim-blasphemy-law
gravenimage says
Archbishop Le Gall Genuflects to Islam
……………..
What a dhimmi tool.
R Russell says
Who gave him the authority to speak for all Christians?
He never asked me. If he had asked me if i would have him speak for me I would have said a definite, ‘NO’.
somehistory says
If all Christians who disagree with this fool…and agree with your comment …could shout out with one voice, it would be a resounding “NO.”
alberto gorin says
offending muslims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Holocaust_Cartoon_Competition
and no jew went and attack people from iran we can t even draw one cartoon or mention it
https://www.jta.org/2019/03/06/global/i-spoke-to-the-creators-of-belgiums-anti-semitic-carnival-float-theyre-not-sorry
also there or was netherlands
make sick and tired of muslims
somehistory says
The Bible says there are those “misleading and being mislead.” This guy is “misleading” those who do not know Christianity, whether or not they claim to be Christian.
Many people in the world who are not Christian, believe and quote those who are like this fool. These ones, not knowing what Jesus Christ taught, not understanding Christian faith and actions, are mislead by fools such as he and the pope who pretend to speak for Christians and Christianity.
I have had people tell me what I believe….wrong things that I don’t believe…due to such as this guy and others who say ignorant. stupid, and purposely misleading things publicly. It’s really amazing how many fools pretend to know what Christians think, believe, feel and use their tongues to mislead others on such things.
Goofy says
The Roman Catholic church is based on the claim that it’s leader the pope is the successor of the apostle Peter. When the risen Christ reinstated Peter as an apostle he did it with the words: feed my sheep, tend my sheep …
Ever since Vatican II the Roman Catholic church has gone out of its way to be nice to Islam which as religion is entirely based on the denial of Jesus Christ as Lord, God and Saviour. The current pope is totally absorbed by his urge to form a brotherhood with the leaders of Islam, the claimed third Abrahamic religion.
The clergy of the Roman Catholic church is supposed to act as good shepherds protecting the sheep belonging to their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They don’t do that, and they even don’t raise their voices when Catholics are brutally slaughtered in their cathedral by a Muslim. Are they afraid that it would be bad taste to raise this issue, which might trigger more Islamic terror because it would be perceived to be a criticism of the peaceful religion of Islam?
The clergy of the Roman Catholic church has abdicated St Peter’s calling to be a good shepherd of God’s own sheep. Instead it follows the political line of the current pope by putting priority on building up friendly relations with the leaders of Islam, The shepherds have sided with the wolves that ravage the flock, which has no shepherd any longer. What might our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ think about that?
OLD GUY says
Goofy is not so goofy. Well stated.