Should the Pope apologize??

[bimshire]

While churches are burning across the globe, should the Pope apologize to the savages??

"Savages" !!!!!! Isn't that what the land grabbers called the American Indians and thereafter slaughtered many and the forced the others onto reservations.

 

[mickeyfan2]

That is an open question among canonists.

Yes there have been Popes who have stepped down. It was customary at one time to step down when you were too ill or served too long (>10 years). Pope John Paul considered it when the millenium occurred, but decided not to since the recent Popes had died in office. That seems to be the trend now, but it could change again.

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes Sir, the religion of peace at work.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[sodaseller]

Full text at Link

I cannot find a summary of apice I am looking for that I have read about the best context. Suffice it to say that the Pope understood what he was saying

 

[Kendra17]

I too find it daft that there are extremists who would demand peace and respect without offering the same back, as the majority do.

A good example would be the picture of the Prophet with a bomb on his head.

As an aside, I still have the picture of the Prophet with a pizza on his head - reminds me to keep petty earthly politics in check



Rich::

Yes, but many Muslims would find any picture of Muhammed offensive-- even if it depicts him in a flattering light. So, a picture of Muhammed with a pizza on his head is just as offensive as one with a bomb and just as offensive as one without either.

Also, the Muslims that were "offended" (to put it mildly) regarding the cartoons, probably weren't too upset that a bomb, specifically, was depicted.

 

[eclectics]

Yes there have been Popes who have stepped down. It was customary at one time to step down when you were too ill or served too long (>10 years). Pope John Paul considered it when the millenium occurred, but decided not to since the recent Popes had died in office. That seems to be the trend now, but it could change again.

I had no idea it was elective. Thanks for the info.

 

[sodaseller]

I think his vow is until death or irreversible incapacitation, but I'm not 100% sure.

Canon 332 premits a freely given resignation. But there is no one to accept it, and the encylicals on succession do not contemplate it

 

[eclectics]

Canon 332 premits a freely given resignation. But thee is no one to accept it, and the encylicals on succession do not contemplate it

Thanks. My knowledge of Catholicism laws is very limited. Always happy to learn new things!

 

[Fitswimmer]

However, since we both know this is not the end of the story, IMO everytime I read stupidity such as who's taking offence at what was said, who's rioting over a cartoon, who's throwing a bomb in Belfast, etc. I'm reminded, once again, that religion is not a solution, but a problem. That is my opinion and it's reinforced everyday.

Being a Catholic, I take offense to the idea that religion is a problem. However, it's pretty ok to insult religion in this country. In many cases, you could believe that it was encouraged, as long as you don't insult Islam or Judaism.

Saying religion is the problem would mean that we ignore any good that has been done in the name of religion, like the first AID's hospices in NY being set up by the NY Archdiocese, or Mother Theresa's work with the poor. From what I read in the Times, the first real help to show up in Louisiana were religious organizations-WAY ahead of FEMA. Yes, religion has its problems, but as I said earlier-ALL have sinned. I don't condemn the religon for the acts of a small minority of it's followers. I DO condemn the leaders of the religion when they do not speak out against the violent acts of it's followers, and that's my issue here.

 

[Kendra17]

That's exactly what I wondered. Like Sharon in Jerusalem entering the Muslim holy place. They both should have known what the reaction would be. . Wether or not it's their right to say and do as they please isn't really the point. Of course they have the right. And I, in no way, am condoning the reaction both events wrought. But, should they have known better is the question I am wondering.

This is interesting. I understand you are in no way advocating the violence that erupted after these two events. However, why are these things even both issues? I don't buy luvduke's food-chain comment. WHy does Islam get a pass while others-- religious or not-- do not get a pass.

Why can't Sharon go to Jerusalem? This is not a place that is historically for Muslims alone. And, even if it was. . . SO WHAT? Behavior like this from Christians and Jews and others would NEVER be accepted and the attempt to understand it wouldn't be pondered.

Why can't the Pope, as another religious leader, call on Muslims to examine what's going on? There IS violence-- even if not all Muslims perpetrate the violence. Why can't any leader-- religious or secular-- call on the Muslim leaders for change? Why can't any leader anywhere bring up matters for dialogue?

Why isn't there an uproar from the Left when Egyptian television promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for major prime time tv and presents it as fact? Why isn't there a peep from the left when some of us post those youtube videos that actually show what many mosques are teaching and prove they are not just places of worship but also political venues?

Why should we self-censor to please or appease those who wish to harm us because of their insane backlash? Why aren't moderate Muslims asking these same questions LOUDLY?

And, although some here keep twisting my comments to include ALL Muslims, let me say again that I have no problem with whatever anyone wishes to believe. I have a problem when those beliefs turn into violent action against any of us.

I don't understand why the onus should fall on anyone but those that perpetrate or advocate violence. We completely need to call the terrorists on their behavior. And, this is NOT saying ALL Muslims are perpetuating violence. But to deny that the Muslims' holy book is full of blatantly violent passages and to pretend that it is interpreted only peacefully is denying much of what is going on in the world.

 

[Laura]

Imagine a novel written with many different chapters. Now, imagine that someone decided to organize the chapters by length only-- not by chronological time. That is how the Koran is organized. It was written chronologically but it is organized by length. This doesn't matter in this discussion, though, Laura, because one would still read it chronologically. One can still read the Koran chronologically despite it's organization.

I realized I forgot to address this point. You could read the surahs in chronological order, IF scholars could agree on it.

Chronological order of only few Surahs and Ayaat can be determined. Even there the opinions differ.

http://www.netnavigate.com/hasan/studyquran/ch5.html

Your sources should be more varied, scholarly, and critical.

You really should take this advice, Kendra.

 

[Charade]

The Pope's remarks were ill chosen. The issue is overlaid by a lot, and no summaries do it justice. This statement was did not arise ex nihilo, and was not inadvertent. I don't think he thought it would be circulated outside academic circles, which was the intended audience

As for the OP, consider "For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.

Ill chosen perhaps, but right on the mark IMO. Reactions just validate them.

 

[dcentity2000]

Yes, but many Muslims would find any picture of Muhammed offensive-- even if it depicts him in a flattering light. So, a picture of Muhammed with a pizza on his head is just as offensive as one with a bomb and just as offensive as one without either.

Also, the Muslims that were "offended" (to put it mildly) regarding the cartoons, probably weren't too upset that a bomb, specifically, was depicted.

I've wondered about this; specifically:

• No-one knows what the Prophet looks like on this earth, so how can we depict him?
• If intention is the trigger (intention to depict the Prophet) then what happens if I accidentally paint the spitting image of the Prophet when trying to draw something else?



Rich::

 

[Charade]

This is the last time I'm going to try and explain this to you. For old time's sake, here we go again: I don't have an opinion either way whether he should apologize or not. I don't particularly care.

K! Mom...

IMO, he should've known better than to say it at all. End of story.

Noted.

However, since we both know this is not the end of the story, IMO everytime I read stupidity such as who's taking offence at what was said, who's rioting over a cartoon, who's throwing a bomb in Belfast, etc. I'm reminded, once again, that religion is not a solution, but a problem. That is my opinion and it's reinforced everyday.

The problem isn't the stupidty you refer to, it's the dismisal by those that regard it as stupid. Because it's got deadly consequences.

 

[DawnCt1]

*Slightly* off topic, but can the Pope actually resign? I don't think that he should, I'm just curious?



Rich::

I am not Catholic so I don't know for sure. I know that there was some discussion during Pope John Paul II illness that he should step down so there is a possibility but certainly not for political reasons.

 

[sodaseller]

It is important to note in addressing this issue that this Pope is, independent of his poistion, perhaps the world's foremost systematic theologian. But he is not naturally a pastor or ecumentist. He has fully affirmed Nostra Aetate, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that Muslims worship the same God and should be esteemed. But he has also stated that his reading of the Koran, which he is conversant in, is that Islam permits no secular distinction or discretion in the believer not to seek to impose shar'ia law (which, parenthetically, is not wholly different from the obligations he attempted to impose on Catholics as Prefect of CDF via the doctrinal note. This was plainly an academic lecture as a systematic theologian. It is not Church teaching

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

As for the original question, "should the pope apologize?" Frankly my opinion is without meaning since I am not a Roman Catholic. He is not my leader and he does no speak for me. I do admire and respect his office and his ministry. For me to have an opinion would be .

Looking at the "big picture" over the last few decades, does anyone else notice that the hatred, violence, and vitriol is increasing in each religious skirmish. I am particularly referring to Islam. The resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism has given rise to a tremendous increase in violence. This whole pope stuff will blow over in a few days. Then someone else from a western nation will say something or draw something and then the Muslims from all the predictable locations will go blow something up, burn something, kill somebody, and seek out flashy photo ops with AK-47s. It will happen just as surely as fans in certain cities will go out and rape and pillage when their team wins the big game. We human beings are so predictable.

 

[sodaseller]

Ill chosen perhaps, but right on the mark IMO. Reactions just validate them.

How do you know they're on the mark? What context do you think they were delivered in? But even if we indulge that they are "on te mark" for the context you are referring to (which I submit is wholly different from the context for which they were offered), is not the last element of the common Jesuitical 4 step ethical analysis to contemplate foreseeble consequences, even in speaking truth?

 

[dcentity2000]

I know that there was some discussion during Pope John Paul II illness that he should step down so there is a possibility but certainly not for political reasons.

Of course, you're totally right! I completely forgot



Rich::

 

[Kendra17]

I said I leave interpreting the Qur'an to Muslims. I also leave interpreting the Bible to the Christians. I can learn about the religions' histories and social impact from many sources, but for me to listen to a non-believer's interpretation of a particular line of Scripture? It doesn't seem to me it would be the best way to learn the beliefs that are a result of the particular Scripture.

No doubt Islam has issues, and the political ambitions and violent tendencies of the radicals need to be addressed by Muslims. But you're painting a false picture that depicts all Muslims are alike, which is not the case with the followers of Islam any more than the followers of other religions. As I said, you see what you want to see, Kendra. You're dismissing the moderate point of view in favor of what you've read about the noisier radical factions.

No, I am not dismissing the moderate point of view at all. What I am dismissing is the statements made that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Koran is a beautiful book. The Koran is not beautiful unless one dismisses the many passages that call for the death and destruction and enslavement and rape and dismemberment and torture done in the name of Allah to spread Islam. I don't think the biblical passages that call for death are beautiful! But, nobody will even acknowledge that these incongruencies exist although they are so quick to point it any fault with Christianity.

Believe me, I don't see only what I want to see. If that were the case, the world would be peaceful and nonviolent and we'd not be having this discussion. What I am doing is recognizing the cause of the current violence. It's ironic that you state you only get your interpretation of Islam from Muslims because the truth of the matter is you ignore the interpretation that very many RELIGIOUS and DEVOUT Muslims are making. And, if you read the Koran yourself and read the rest of the actual source material, rather than just relying on what people are just telling you it means, you would find that there is really no other way of "interpreting" it.

One can choose to ignore what they are reading, but passages that state "Kill the infidels wherever you may find them", "Fight them (infidels) until the religion of Allah reigns absolute", "If it weren't for the Jews, meat would not rot", and "We will strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers because they worship others besides Allah" don't leave much room for misinterpretation.

Uh, how would you interpret these passages? And, remember, these weren't general statements or decrees. . . these were orders to behave a certain way and orders to commit atrocious bloodshed and then actually following through on it (and some are actually still following through on it).

When I speak of dualism, I am speaking of the fact that Muhammed himself divided humanity into two groups-- Muslims and nonMuslims. Muhammed's reactions to each person depended upon if they were Muslim or nonMuslim.

He believed that Unity of humanity could only come when the whole world submitted to Islam. From the actual examples in Muhammed's life (WHETHER THIS FITS INTO THE PC VERSION OR NOT), we see Muslims are ENCOURAGED to mock, malign, threaten, torture, kill, rob, and enslave to further the cause of Islam.

According to Muhammed, good is the advance of Islam and bad is the resistance of Islam.

I am not stating that ALL Muslims believe this to be true. But, then, they'd actually not really be Muslim, they'd be blasphemists and be considered an apostate. To be a good and devout and religious Muslim one does submits to Allah and Islam, believes the one true prophet is Muhammed and believes that Muhammed's revelations-- the Koran-- were and are divine.