My thoughts on the Pope's statements, and Islam

[johnnykins]

You’d better learn to read posts before responding to them. The original reference was to a “religion of peace,” NOT to conversion by force. Based on history, neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be so. The suppression of heretics in France was done by the sword; when the Western crusaders went east, they attacked first Christian Constantinople, murdered, raped and robbed, and then headed to Jerusalem where they killed every Jew and Moslem they could lay their hands on. Soldiers of the Religion of Peace? A defensive action? Hah! And there were numerous protestant-catholic wars and protestant-protestant wars after the Reformation. A religion of peace???

A canard??? Are you serious? Do you think that the Inquisition was an unfounded or false story?.

Like John Paul II and the Vatican who describe Islam in the Catechism and in Nostra Aetate?

Just a few obvious corrections:The Sack of Constantinople was in the 4th crusade - and arguably because the Greeks failed to live up to their bargain, kept the crusaders outside the walls in squalor and had alienated the western leaders by their prior support of Saladin in the 3rd crusade. NOTE this is a complicated topic, hence"arguably"

While there were numerous wars of religion, it’s hard to classify the 30 Years War as fundamentally one despite aspects of sectarian strife. France, under the leadership of Cardinal Richelieu as Louis XIII’s first minister, supported the Lutheran Swedes against the Catholic Austrians.

Finally, though not explicit above, the Crusades were indeed basically defensive - the Moslems were in Tours France in the 8th century and were not pushed back from Vienna until the 17th century. If not defensive, one must ask how they got there from Arabia and the middle east.

Nonetheless, both religions have got tied up in politics and the attendant wars, etc.

 

[CathCentrist]

The Pope was out of line. He also pulled one of those politically infamous “non apology apologies”

“I was only quoting from an ancient text - and it doesnt reflect my thoughts at all”…so, um, why did ya state it at all?

This cant be spun. He did what he did and was clearly wrong.

 

[CocamoJoe]

For those antaganistic to the Catholic Church, especially regarding the violence she has done in the past (i.e., Crusades and Inquisition), please respond to my thoughts on the matter, found in my opening post…

I think a Catholic, with some blood in the past, can still refer to Islam as not being a religion of peace, all the while claiming his [Catholicism] to be, without contradicting himself. I say this, because the Koran certainly does condone violence; the New Testament certainly does not. Saints Paul and Peter both attest that our real enemies are not flesh and blood, but demonic forces. This is a development from Judaism, which, as I initially said, became less and less violent in the Old Testament, as God revealed more and more of himself to them with each new covenant.
Christ, all through the Gospels—Matthew in particular—warns that there will be saints and sinners, side by side in the Church, until the end of time. That is my interpretation of the **** in the past of the Church.

Regarding John Paul II supposedly stating that Islam is a religion of peace: I think he was wrong. There are instances where I think Pope John Paul II, being a very holy man and philosophically esteemed, was soft. He allowed the Liturgy in the West to become, in my opinion, a travesty; he allowed there to be female altar servers; he kissed the Koran, when visiting a Mosque in the Middle East. The Pope shouldn’t be like the school master in Pink Floyd’s movie The Wall, but he, being responsible for the souls of so many people, should be more willing to punish when the need arises. I think the Pope should let the other Bishops handle their own dioceses, or epharchies, affairs; but, that if a Bishop is acting out-of-hand, the Pope shouldn’t award him with a Cardinals skull cap, as John Paul II did on numerous occassions.

 

[estesbob]

You’d better learn to read posts before responding to them. The original reference was to a “religion of peace,” NOT to conversion by force. Based on history, neither Islam nor Christianity can claim to be so. The suppression of heretics in France was done by the sword; when the Western crusaders went east, they attacked first Christian Constantinople, murdered, raped and robbed, and then headed to Jerusalem where they killed every Jew and Moslem they could lay their hands on. Soldiers of the Religion of Peace? A defensive action? Hah! And there were numerous protestant-catholic wars and protestant-protestant wars after the Reformation. A religion of peace???

I note your only defense seems to be we are all ignorant for not reading the posts the way you want us to. You have such a poor understandng of Christianity and Islam that your posts are hard to follow. To begin with Christianity in no way shape or form preaches violence as a means spread the faith. Islam does-the goal being the conversion of unbeleivers-by force if necessary. Even a cursory reading of the Koran or of Muslim history would show you that.

The idea that in the Churchs 2,000 year history some men doing violence in the name of religion is akin to a religion that peaches violence is, as i said before, nonsense.

A canard??? Are you serious? Do you think that the Inquisition was an unfounded or false story?.

I suspect your understanidng of the inquisition is as poor as your unerstanidng of the crusades and Islam…The Church killed no one in the Inquistion-and in its 300 year history the total killed in its name was less than the number who died on 9-11.

Like John Paul II and the Vatican who describe Islam in the Catechism and in Nostra Aetate?

John Paul the Great preached that violence should not be done in the name of Religion-same as Benedcit the 16th did.

 

[estesbob]

The Pope was out of line. He also pulled one of those politically infamous “non apology apologies”

“I was only quoting from an ancient text - and it doesnt reflect my thoughts at all”…so, um, why did ya state it at all?

This cant be spun. He did what he did and was clearly wrong.

Please tell us what it is he said that was wrong.

 

[CocamoJoe]

The Pope was out of line. He also pulled one of those politically infamous “non apology apologies”

“I was only quoting from an ancient text - and it doesnt reflect my thoughts at all”…so, um, why did ya state it at all?

This cant be spun. He did what he did and was clearly wrong.

Perhaps the Pope was out of line for saying that it didn’t reflect his thoughts, as I think it does; but, he certainly wasn’t out of line for reading the quote. Have you read his entire speech given that day? If not, I advise you to do so. The fact of the matter is that Mohommed did preach to drop the sword on those who wouldn’t convert, and certainly is recorded numerous times in his “holy book”.
I, personally, think his “non-apology” was genius. He shouldn’t be sorry, as he did nothing wrong. He has said, merely, that he is “deeply sorry” that people were offended. The quote accused Islam of being violent, and the Muslims got offended, and reacted violently, and are now threatening the life of the Pope, and, I think in effect, all Catholics… Hmmm… Are you willing to convert to Islam? I’m not.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps the Pope was out of line for saying that it didn’t reflect his thoughts, as I think it does; but, he certainly wasn’t out of line for reading the quote. Have you read his entire speech given that day? If not, I advise you to do so. The fact of the matter is that Mohommed did preach to drop the sword on those who wouldn’t convert, and certainly is recorded numerous times in his “holy book”.
I, personally, think his “non-apology” was genius. He shouldn’t be sorry, as he did nothing wrong. He has said, merely, that he is “deeply sorry” that people were offended. The quote accused Islam of being violent, and the Muslims got offended, and reacted violently, and are now threatening the life of the Pope, and, I think in effect, all Catholics… Hmmm… Are you willing to convert to Islam? I’m not.

Exaclty! I have come to like Benedict XVI very much.

 

[Eden]

The Pope was out of line. He also pulled one of those politically infamous “non apology apologies”

“I was only quoting from an ancient text - and it doesnt reflect my thoughts at all”…so, um, why did ya state it at all?

This cant be spun. He did what he did and was clearly wrong.

He was speaking to academics about faith and reason at the university in Germany where he once taught. I don’t know if you have actually read the full transcript or if you didn’t understand it. It has to be one or the other for you to make the statement that you did above.

 

[Strider]

The Pope was out of line. He also pulled one of those politically infamous “non apology apologies”

“I was only quoting from an ancient text - and it doesnt reflect my thoughts at all”…so, um, why did ya state it at all?

This cant be spun. He did what he did and was clearly wrong.

First, I suggest, with others, that you read the entire test of the pope’s address.
Second, I believe His Holiness used his impressive intellect and inserted this quote into his addres intentionally. The address was about faith and reason (in a philosophical sense) and what happens when the two are separated. What he said “between the lines,” was that promising young men glory and virgins in heaven if they strap explosives mixed with nails and other shrapnel around themselves blow them up and killing as many other young people as you can is the ultimate in the separation of faith from reason and this is the expected result.
He hasn’t apologized because he has nothing for which to apologize. The imams whipped their followers, who probably wouldn’t know the pope from Elvis, and now they’re doing the same old same old noise making, effigy burning garbage in the street.
And it’s all enflamed and encouraged by the western MSM.

 

[Richardols]

I

I suspect your understanidng of the inquisition is as poor as your unerstanidng of the crusades and Islam…The Church killed no one in the Inquistion-and in its 300 year history the total killed in its name was less than the number who died on 9-11.

You are wrong. The Church courts did carry out death sentences. “The Inquisition ***acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, ***far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts." I

Inquisition by Edward Peters, page 87, (Free Press/Macmillan, 1988, Univ of Calif Press, 1989)

If you want to rebut me, cite your sources.

 

[estesbob]

You are wrong. The Church courts did carry out death sentences. “The Inquisition ***acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, ***far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts." I

Inquisition by Edward Peters, page 87, (Free Press/Macmillan, 1988, Univ of Calif Press, 1989)

If you want to rebut me, cite your sources.

Actually your cut n paste bears out what I said Now instead of just cut n pasting go do some more research and see who carried out the executions. Hint-it wasnt the Church,

You see in most Monarchies the King was considered chosen by God and an offense against him was an ofense against God, Thus heresy equaled treason and those found guilty of such were executed by the STATE! I would suggest if you want to go beyond googleing for cites you read Henry Kamen’s "***The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision ". ***

But we drift away from the topic at hand-your contention that Christianity and Islam both espouse violence-a contention that is categorically false,

 

[Richardols]

Actually your cut n paste bears out what I said.

Peters says that people were executed by Inquisitorial verdict. That doesn’t bear out your contention.

see who carried out the executions. Hint-it wasnt the Church,

Oh, I see. The Church didn’t do the actual hanging or burning at the stake, it just sentenced you to death and the civil authorities carried out the execution. A fine distinction, indeed.

It was still the Church that conducted the trial and delivered the verdict. Even James Hitchcock, a noted Catholic scholar and professor at St. Louis University admitted that those were Church condemnations, though he set the figure at nearer 900.

But we drift away from the topic at hand-your contention that Christianity and Islam both espouse violence-a contention that is categorically false,

You show me one post where I said that both Christianity and Islam espouse violence. Just one post, if you can.

You’ll do a lot better if you focus on reading other people’s posts before responding to what you thought they posted.

 

[estesbob]

Peters says that people were executed by Inquisitorial verdict. That doesn’t bear out your contention.

Oh, I see. The Church didn’t do the actual hanging or burning at the stake, it just sentenced you to death and the civil authorities carried out the execution. A fine distinction, indeed.

It was still the Church that conducted the trial and delivered the verdict. Even James Hitchcock, a noted Catholic scholar and professor at St. Louis University admitted that those were Church condemnations, though he set the figure at nearer 900.

You show me one post where I said that both Christianity and Islam espouse violence. Just one post, if you can.

You’ll do a lot better if you focus on reading other people’s posts before responding to what you thought they posted.

You addressed little of what I said other than to fall back on “you dont read the posts the way i want you to” argument that has become prevalent in this thread as the Mislim apologists run for cover… At least you agree that the statement the church excuted people in the Inquisiton is false-thats a start, i guess.

 

[Richardols]

You addressed little of what I said other than to fall back on “you dont read the posts the way i want you to” argument that has become prevalent in this thread as the Mislim apologists run for cover.

Looks like you running for cover as you still haven’t identified the post in which I stated that both Christianity and Islam espouse violence. Please provide my statement.

At least you agree that the statement the church excuted people in the Inquisiton is false-thats a start, i guess.

You’re grasping at straws. The Church delivered the verdict of death to those people. It doesn’t matter that some prison lackeys actually carried out the sentence. It was still the **Church **that sent the people to their deaths.

 

[bones_IV]

Looks like you running for cover as you still haven’t identified the post in which I stated that both Christianity and Islam espouse violence. Please provide my statement.

You’re grasping at straws. The Church delivered the verdict of death to those people. It doesn’t matter that some prison lackeys actually carried out the sentence. It was still the **Church **that sent the people to their deaths.

Consider this statement by Geraghty.

Inquisition and Crypto Jews
Question from on 06-16-2006: How does the Church treat these events and the suppression of Jews in Spain and Portugal?

Answer by Richard Geraghty on 07-09-2006: Dear Joseph,One has to know a great deal about the history of Spain in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century in order to understand the the relations between the Catholic monarchs and the Holy See in Rome. And to understand the Catholic monarchs one has to remember that they had been fighting the Muslims who had invaded and occupied much of Spain in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. It was only at the end of the Fifteenth Century that the Spaniards drove the last remnants of the Muslims out of Spain. The Jews as a people often got caught between the struggle between the Muslims and the Catholics. In general, the Popes were much fairer in their attitude toward the Jews than the monarchs. But that does not come out in the history books which, being for English speakers, do not deal with Spain or the Church very fairly. Hence we have the myth of the Inquisition with the Church burning Jews as enemies of the Church and the Nation. That is not a fair picture. To get balance one has to study the history of the times. Reading the article on the Inquisition in the Catholic Encyclopedia on line would be a good start. An author by the name of Walsh has also written a great deal on the subject of the Inquisition. There are also some good books today on the Inquisition but I do not recall their names. Perhaps some of the posters are aware of them. A surprising thing to discover is that actually the Inquisition was an advance in the judicial process. As in most stories about the affairs of men, there is a great deal of justice and injustice tied together. The Church turns out in general to be quite just and fair. The monarchs were far less just in their handling of the Jews.
Dr. Geraghty

Think before you speak.

 

[bones_IV]

Richardols, you asked for documentations. How about these?

The Building of Christendom (A History of Christendom, Vol. 2) and The Glory of Christendom (History of Christendom Series : Vol. 3) by Warren H. Carroll; The Crusades: The World’s Debate by Hilaire Belloc; A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman; The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith; and especially What Were the Crusades? by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen; the second is Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition? by Very. Rev. Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran.

My question to you is do you even now what the inquisitions and the crusades were for?

 

[estesbob]

Richardols, you asked for documentations. How about these?

The Building of Christendom (A History of Christendom, Vol. 2) and The Glory of Christendom (History of Christendom Series : Vol. 3) by Warren H. Carroll; The Crusades: The World’s Debate by Hilaire Belloc; A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman; The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith; and especially What Were the Crusades? by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen; the second is Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition? by Very. Rev. Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran.

My question to you is do you even now what the inquisitions and the crusades were for?

Kamen’s book is the best of the lot IMO

It is interesting tha whenever one goes after the Church they always mention the Inquisition and the Crusades and you can rest assured 99% of them havent a clue what those two were all about. You will see wild clams about the Church killing 500,000 people(they killed none) and Crusaders eating baby’s(there is a small kernel of truth there!) and the Crusades being for the purpose of spreading the faith by the Sword(completely false).

 

[Richardols]

Consider this statement by Geraghty.~truncated~ The monarchs were far less just in their handling of the Jews.
Dr. Geraghty

This piece doesn’t refute the fact that the Church condemned people to death, perhaps as few as 900, perhaps as many as 5,000. It only says that the Church didn’t burn Jews at the stake as enemies of the Church or state. I don’t disagree with that.

 

[Richardols]

Richardols, you asked for documentations. How about these?

The Building of Christendom (A History of Christendom, Vol. 2) and The Glory of Christendom (History of Christendom Series : Vol. 3) by Warren H. Carroll; The Crusades: The World’s Debate by Hilaire Belloc; A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman; The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith; and especially What Were the Crusades? by Jonathan Riley-Smith.

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision by Henry Kamen; the second is Why Apologize for the Spanish Inquisition? by Very. Rev. Fr. Alphonsus Maria Duran.

A laundry list of books isn’t proof of anything. You do better to cite in those books where your position is upheld if you hope to convince anyone.

 

[Richardols]

You will see wild clams about the Church killing 500,000 people

That sounds like Dave Hunt’s wild assertions.

(they killed none)

No. They ordered the executions of several thousand, even if they didn’t carry out the sentences themselves.