Attack on Israel was Included in Papal Condemnation

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
VATICAN CITY, JUL 26, 2005 (VIS) - Yesterday evening, Holy See Press Office Director Joaquin Navarro-Valls released the following declaration to journalists:

"Concerning the Israeli reaction to the fact that the Holy Father, in his Angelus of Sunday July 24, did not also mention Israel alongside other countries, it should be noted that Benedict XVI’s words specifically referred to the attacks of ‘these days.’

"It is surprising that the Holy Father’s intention should have been thus groundlessly misinterpreted, it being well known that in numerous interventions the Church, the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs, and most recently Pope Benedict XVI, have condemned all forms of terrorism, from whatever side it comes and against whomsoever it is directed. “Obviously, the serious attack in Netanya two weeks ago, to which the Israeli comments refer, also falls under the general and unreserved condemnation of terrorism.”
 
If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.
 
40.png
Richardols:
If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.
Since when do we have to agree with a goverment or country 100%??? And what do you call it when Israel Criticizes the Pope??
http://www.asianews.it/view_p.php?l=en&art=3789
 
40.png
Karin:
Since when do we have to agree with a goverment or country 100%??? And what do you call it when Israel Criticizes the Pope??
You are apparently criticizing me for my remark, which you have taken literally. Please look up sarcasm in the dictionary.
 
40.png
Richardols:
If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.
That is blasphemy, Richardols, and you know it! Either back it up or retract it. I am not 100% pro-Israel that makes me an anti-semite? Since when is not backing Israel on criticizing the Pope anti-semitic? You are a heretic, and God will send you to hell for it, unless you repent.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
That is blasphemy, Richardols, and you know it! Either back it up or retract it. I am not 100% pro-Israel that makes me an anti-semite? Since when is not backing Israel on criticizing the Pope anti-semitic? You are a heretic, and God will send you to hell for it, unless you repent.
That’s the spirit! Sarcasm rules!
 
40.png
bones_IV:
That is blasphemy, Richardols, and you know it! Either back it up or retract it. I am not 100% pro-Israel that makes me an anti-semite? Since when is not backing Israel on criticizing the Pope anti-semitic? You are a heretic, and God will send you to hell for it, unless you repent.
I am a bit confused here…but how is what Richard said blasphemy (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred) he did not disrespect God or something sacred (but i could be wrong and if I am please show me my error in thought!!)
 
40.png
Karin:
I am a bit confused here…but how is what Richard said blasphemy (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred) he did not disrespect God or something sacred (but i could be wrong and if I am please show me my error in thought!!)
First, when I read his post. I took offense to it. Why? Whether the post was intended to be sarcastic that isn’t my place to say. But from what I gather, that post of Richardols in my view did not have the tone of Sarcasm in it. In the catholic faith, its a serious sin to criticize the Pope especially on remarks such as this. In other words if he did have the intention on being sarcastic it only caused more hate. In my view Richardols is just trying to stir up more hate. Just my opinion.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
First, when I read his post. I took offense to it. Why? Whether the post was intended to be sarcastic that isn’t my place to say. But from what I gather, that post of Richardols in my view did not have the tone of Sarcasm in it. In the catholic faith, its a serious sin to criticize the Pope especially on remarks such as this. In other words if he did have the intention on being sarcastic it only caused more hate. In my view Richardols is just trying to stir up more hate. Just my opinion.
I am sorry once again I must be really slow…but he did not criticize the Pope.
Richardols If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.
How is this against the Pope??
 
40.png
Karin:
I am sorry once again I must be really slow…but he did not criticize the Pope.
Richardols If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.
How is this against the Pope??
The reason is because Israel criticizes the Pope on a consistent basis because the Benedict doesn’t agree with all their policies. Neither do I. Like for example being 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time is like saying that its okay for the Israeli government to tax the Catholic Churches down there, which I am against.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
The reason is because Israel criticizes the Pope on a consistent basis because the Benedict doesn’t agree with all their policies.
So it sounds to me like Israel commited blasphemy not Richard.
 
I confess that I have committed Sarcasm.

(Am I being sarcastic there?) 🙂
 
Sarcasm and irony, sometimes don´t work in internet, Richard, you are right, I am near of Israel many times, but they are wrong today, it´s a pity.
 
Hi all!

I post the following:
Vatican, Israel in public squabble as pope’s German shul visit nears

by Ruth Ellen Gruber

ROME, July 31 (JTA) — A public spat over the Vatican’s attitude to terrorism — and to Israel — is straining relations between Israel and the Holy See just three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI is due to make a historic visit to a synagogue in his native Germany.

The dispute erupted a week ago, when Israel protested that the pope had “deliberately failed” to include terrorist attacks in Israel in a July 24 condemnation of recent terrorism in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq. “We expected that the new pope, who on taking office emphasized the importance he places on relations between the church and the Jewish people, would behave differently,” an Israeli Foreign Ministry statement said.

Citing the July 12 suicide attack in Netanya that killed five Israelis, the statement called on the pope to condemn attacks “against Jews in the same way he condemns terror attacks against others.”

Escalating salvoes from both sides culminated July 28 with an unusually harsh Vatican statement that accused Israel of breaking international law in its actions against Palestinians and declared that Vatican policy would not be dictated by Jerusalem.

“It’s not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation,” the Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls said in the statement.

This was partly because “attacks against Israel were sometimes followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the norms of international law,” he said. “It would, consequently, have been impossible to condemn the former and remain silent on the latter.”

He added, “Just as the Israeli government understandably does not allow its pronouncements to be dictated by others, neither can the Holy See accept lessons and directives from any other authority concerning the orientation and contents of its own declarations.”

Navarro’s statement came in direct response to assertions made by Israeli Foreign Ministry official Nimrod Barkan to the Jerusalem Post that Israel had quietly protested that Benedict’s predecessor, Pope John Paul II, had also refrained from condemning terror attacks in Israel.

Israel was now going public with such concerns, he said, in the hope that Benedict would change this policy.

Israeli and Vatican officials cooled their rhetoric over the weekend, but observers said the bitter dispute represented Benedict’s first major diplomatic crisis since he was elected pope in April following the death of his predecessor.

“This is a very undiplomatic escalation of mutual accusations — each one more lamentable than the next,” said Rabbi David Rosen, the Jerusalem-based director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, who assigned blame to both sides.

“There was indeed an original omission in the words of Pope Benedict that should have been corrected,” he said. “However, Israel’s public reaction was so intemperate that it inevitably backfired.”

Nevertheless, he added, “Navarro Valls’ latest comment suggesting that there is moral equivalence between terrorism and Israel’s reprisals in self-defense is a moral stain on the integrity of the church. I am sure that Pope Benedict had no knowledge that such a deplorable comment would be made in the name of the Holy See and I trust that he will find the opportunity to correct this serious aberration.”

Rosen called the affair a “very regrettable storm in a teacup” and predicted that it would blow over.

Observers said the spat seemed all the more unexpected because since he took office in April, Benedict has repeatedly pledged to further Jewish-Catholic relations both in statements and in meetings with international Jewish leaders.

Benedict is due to meet with German Jewish leaders and visit the synagogue in Cologne on August 19. It will be the first visit ever by a pope to a synagogue in Germany and the first to a synagogue since John Paul’s landmark visit to Tempio Maggiore, or the Great Synagogue of Rome, in 1986.

(cont.)
 
(cont.)

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Gary Bretton-Granatoor, the group’s interfaith affairs director, wrote to Navarro expressing concern about both the escalating rhetoric and Israel’s omission from the “litany of places beset by terrorism.”

They said they were “especially troubled” by his assertion that Israel’s policies broke international law and, like Rosen, said that it did not seem to reflect Benedict’s thinking.

“This is a serious charge, and we cannot believe that Pope Benedict XVI would have made such a determination,” they wrote. “Nor can we believe that such a determination would have factored into a decision as to whether or not Israel should be included in a list of countries afflicted by wanton terrorism.”

Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, decried the “clearly political polemics.”

The Holy See, he told the Corriere della Sera newspaper, is a “political institution, and, as such, has precise interests to protect in the chess game of the Middle East.”

He added, “I hope that Benedict, who knows theology so well, will quickly try to also understand the ways of politics and the art of diplomacy.”
Link: jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15676&intcategoryid=2

I’ve underlined the sections I find particularly pertinent.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said previously: Our Foreign Minister (who I blame for this flap) is an idiot (I’ve never liked him & think that he is manifestly unfit for his job, as do alot of my fellow Israelis; see findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4160/is_20050613/ai_n14642625.) We know that Pope Benedict XVI is a good friend & a true friend (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59338&highlight=Benedict & forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=54476&highlight=Benedict).

Like Rabbi Rosen (whom I know personally & respect immensely; run a search on his name with my user name) the said in the abovecited article, let us hope that this, “very regrettable storm in a teacup,” blows over very quickly.

Be well!

ssv 👋
 
40.png
stillsmallvoice:
Link: jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15676&intcategoryid=2

I’ve underlined the sections I find particularly pertinent.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said previously: Our Foreign Minister (who I blame for this flap) is an idiot (I’ve never liked him & think that he is manifestly unfit for his job, as do alot of my fellow Israelis; see findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4160/is_20050613/ai_n14642625.) We know that Pope Benedict XVI is a good friend & a true friend (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59338&highlight=Benedict & forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=54476&highlight=Benedict).

Like Rabbi Rosen (whom I know personally & respect immensely; run a search on his name with my user name) the said in the abovecited article, let us hope that this, “very regrettable storm in a teacup,” blows over very quickly.

Be well!

ssv 👋
thank you, again, stillsmallvoice for posting this. be well too!!!
 
Hi all!

I know I’m a bit late posting this, but I think it’s important.
Israel, Vatican Mend Fences After Dispute

By ARIEL DAVID, Associated Press Writer, Fri Aug 26, 4:28 PM ET

A dispute between Israel and the Vatican over Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on terrorism appears to have been resolved, after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sent a letter calling the pontiff “a true friend of Israel,” Israel’s ambassador said Friday.

Israel’s top diplomat at the Holy See, Oded Ben Hur, brought the letter Tuesday to the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, in what the envoy called an “amicable and intimate” meeting that signaled that “we definitely see this thing behind us and are looking forward to improving our relationship.”

The dispute erupted in July, when Israel complained that Benedict had deliberately failed to include a July 12 suicide bombing in Israeli in a list of countries recently hit by terrorist attacks, including Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq.

The two sides traded tit-for-tat pronouncements that culminated with a harshly worded Vatican statement saying the pope couldn’t condemn every Palestinian suicide bombing because Israel would so often retaliate with illegal actions that would also have to be condemned.

In his letter, Sharon said Benedict’s efforts to promote dialogue with Jews and Israel made him “a true friend of Israel, genuinely committed to advancing tolerance, understanding and reconciliation,” Ben Hur said in a phone interview, reading from the letter. He said Sharon then explained the reasons for his country’s reaction to the omission.

“Israel has been devastated and victimized by terrorism, and we are very sensitive to any attempt to distinguish between Islamic terrorism which systematically targets innocent Israeli civilians and that which is aimed at citizens of other countries,” Sharon wrote.

Sodano expressed his satisfaction with the letter during Tuesday’s meeting, saying both sides had made mistakes and that he was happy to put the issue behind him, Ben Hur said. The letter also invited Sodano to visit Israel.

Ben Hur said Sodano had told him the omission of Israel was unintentional, the result of hastily prepared remarks.

The Vatican declined to comment on the matter Friday. But the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, which first reported on Sharon’s letter, quoted the Vatican’s envoy to Israel, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, as saying he was pleased with the “positive outcome of the issue.”

Ben Hur denied the newspaper’s claim that Sharon had acknowledged in the letter that Israeli officials had reacted too aggressively to the pope’s omission.

But the ambassador said Sharon’s letter did include a crucial pledge to revitalize stalled talks on formalizing the church’s tax exempt status in Israel, as called for by a 1994 agreement. Frustration over the prolonged talks was said by many analysts to have contributed to the rift.

Sharon wrote that he has instructed government officials to do everything possible to reach a quick conclusion to the talks, but he also urged the Vatican to do its part.

Israel’s two chief rabbis will meet with the pope Sept. 15. Ben Hur said the meeting has been in the works for some time and was scheduled to coincide with commemorations marking the 40th anniversary of the Vatican’s Nostra Aetate declaration that revolutionized its relations with Jews.

The ambassador said he proposed the meeting “to thank the church, because this was not just a major point in the relation between Jews and Christians, but it also paved the way for the recognition of Israel.”

The two sides are working on a joint statement to be issued after the meeting. Israel hopes it will include “a mutual condemnation of terrorism, of which also Israel has suffered so much,” Ben Hur said.
Link: news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050826/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_israel_2

Be well!

ssv 👋
 
40.png
Richardols:
If you’re not 100% pro-Israel 100% of the time, you’re an anti-semite.

I thought that was sarcastic - but wasn’t entirely certain 🙂

A country that can’t take criticism is IMHO a rather immature & frail one ##
 
40.png
bones_IV:
First, when I read his post. I took offense to it. Why? Whether the post was intended to be sarcastic that isn’t my place to say. But from what I gather, that post of Richardols in my view did not have the tone of Sarcasm in it. In the catholic faith, its a serious sin to criticize the Pope especially on remarks such as this.

Criticising the Pope is a sin ?​

That is a theological novelty, like the notion that God directly elects the Pope.

I hope St. Paul knew that idea 🙂 - and all the other holy people who have criticised Popes, whether for their unorthodoxy, their immorality, their imprudence, or any other reasons.

Or is Papal infallibility, after all, nothing but a form of Papal impeccability ? If so, that too would a novelty.

Popes often do or say or intend very stupid things - it is entirely appropriate to criticise them for their vices and folly and unwise actions. They are not Jesus Christ. They are not even Apostles. They are fallible, sinful, sin-prone, frail, weak, ignorant, limited, human beings - just like the rest of us. And if we can be blamed for our shortcomings, of every kind, so can they: especially as their misjudgemements and blunders and sins may well have far more serious consequences for the Church at large than ours, because of their position. The last thing Popes need is to be flattered, or to be assured that they are overflowing with all Christian virtues, and therefore need listen to absolutely no one.

They are a pretty useless lot - but so are we all (Luke 17.10) 🙂 ##
In other words if he did have the intention on being sarcastic it only caused more hate. In my view Richardols is just trying to stir up more hate. Just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top