Necromancy???

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**You wrote: ** *Many of the “hypersensitives” I mentioned state that their first contacts with the spirit world had been at a young age. Over time, they learned to either block it out completely or at least manage it. It never really goes away, however.

As far as John Paul II is concern, there does seem to be a major public relations campaign to “fast track” his canonization. How close did you get to him during your encounter? Was this before or after your exorcism? If it was before, could it have been the demonic entity within you that was “reviled” by his presence?

As far as his “unprincipled syncretism with other religions”, how much of this do you think was “political posturing” on his part. After all, he is also a head of state. As far as his responsibly as the head of the Catholic faith, I see nothing wrong with opposing religions seeking common ground from within each other’s faiths to avoid conflict. It sure beats killing each other! *​

Well, that is the beauty of the doctrine of papal infallibility: some popes may be of depraved character or make terrible mistakes in choice and behaviour, such as John Paul II’s dreadful syncretistic sacrilege of the basilica of St. Francis in Assisi, but the Holy Spirit shields popes from making, ex cathedra, pronouncements on faith and morals that are heretical. I have difficulty seeing how the pope’s syncretistic behaviour at Assisi could be dismissed on the basis of his being an head of state! That was a religious event, not a political one.

I cannot verify my intimations that John Paul II was not quite right, spiritually, and I would not denounce him on the basis of the subjective feelings that I have had about him. As for the closest contact that I had with him, I was trapped in an huge crowd on a major thoroughfare in Ottawa when he was making a papal visitation there, and despite my efforts to flee, I had to behold him as one in the crowd; that is all, nothing more. This indeed happened before my exorcism, so you are right to point out that demonic deception could be the cause of my fears and sense of panic on that occasion; I know that I suffered other some supernaturally induced deceptions during those years. Catholics do not have to hold in a king of personal reverence prelates who are of dubious character or who do things tht are unwise; one respects the office (of the Pope, of bishops, etc.) despite what one thinks of lor knows about the occupant. You are right about that “fast-tracking” to canonisation and it is understandble, given how much good John Paul II accomplished politically, but I just question that such secular achievements should be the basis for canonisation!

Anyway, God bless Pope Benedict XVI, who is doing so much to reverse so many sad trends since Vatican II. He has a fine mind and is a great prelate!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Miguel Sastre,

**You wrote, in part: ** *ince praying to saints is a kind of communication with the dead, the only prudent conclusion we can draw is to abstain from the practice. All things being equal, if we’re not sure whether or not praying to saints falls under the rubric of necromancy, we ought to play it safe and assume that it does.

So while I hesitate to equate praying to the saints with the occult practice of necromancy as practiced by the Witch of Endor, I nevertheless would be hard-pressed to deny that it is a kind of communication with the dead, which therefore leads me to error on the side of caution and reject the practice as both unbiblical and completely unnecessary.*​

I have quoted above only the end of your excellent and well reasoned posting. You do not trounce prayers to the departed (usually invoking saints), but you urge caution in the matter, since the borderline between prayer to those “on the other side” (as, for sure, we hope that they are in Heaven) and outright necromancy is so indeterminate and vague. If a saint to whom one was praying, startlingly, were to answer us audibly, we would tend to call that an apparition (usually used in regard to the Blessèd Mother, our Lady Mary, but conceivable for another saint), but would it be, really, necromancy? How could the believer be sure which?

I exercise my caution in this way (and others may have their own):

(1) If the invocation to a saint occurs in the public Liturgy, I passively pray with others during the liturgy. I used to shut out that kind of thing by praying the Jesus Prayer while such prayers were made, but this cannot be right; one has to trust the Church’s public liturgy, even if the 1962 traditional Mass was more worthy of such confidence than the functional and coldly efficient, but nevertheless orthodox 1970 Novus Ordo.

(2) In my personal devotions, if an invocation occurs to a saint, I usually read it, but I would not put such an invocation in my own words in extempore prayer. If I pray the devotion frequently, albeit uncomfortable with the invocatory wording in such places, I put parentheses around such a phrase or sentence, or lightly rule through it, to omit such passages. I would not obliterate it completely, which would be disrepectful of the document; in any case, I am still rather in a state of “reception” of these matters, being only recently reconciled to the Church, so my perspective on these things may change as I immerse myself in living the Catholic faith. I would never presume to do this sort of personalised “editing” for a devotion said with others in public.

(3) I make an exception, because the case is so extraordinary, in the case of our Lady, Mary. She is the Theotokos, the Immaculata, and she was assumed into heaven incorrupt. God clearly had a plan for her as intercessor, even as He had plans for her in her earthly life to partake in the “economy of salvation” in a manner that nobody, before or after her, could do. I gladly pray to Our Lady, only taking caution not to avoid devotions that are excessive and/or which entail questionable claims for her.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[rguntner]

You said:

“Well, that is the beauty of the doctrine of papal infallibility: some popes may be of depraved character or make terrible mistakes in choice and behaviour, such as John Paul II’s dreadful syncretistic sacrilege of the basilica of St. Francis in Assisi,”

Jerry,
I’m not familiar with this incident at the St. Francis basilica. Could you please elucidate on this subject?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**You wrote: ** *You (Jerry) said: “Well, that is the beauty of the doctrine of papal infallibility: some popes may be of depraved character or make terrible mistakes in choice and behaviour, such as John Paul II’s dreadful syncretistic sacrilege of the basilica of St. Francis in Assisi,”

Jerry, I’m not familiar with this incident at the St. Francis basilica. Could you please elucidate on this subject?*​

This event happened some years ago, only a couple or so months before the earthquake in Assisi, September 1997, seriously damaged the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi. (Some speculate that this was retribution for the “multi-faith” event in which the pope had participated that was a desecration of the basilica, but I do not choose to guess about such unverifiable matters.) I am trying to recall this from my memory, which may be defective in a detail or two, of the accounts which I read at the time in the Christian press. This event involved not only various Christians, but also the representatives of other monotheistic faiths and, far worse, those of polytheistic, pagan faiths. Images representing these pagan deities or their faith objects were placed on the very altar of the basilica, where they most certainly did not belong.

The entire event was dreadfully syncretistic in nature and no true Christian should have been participating in it. Why the pope would do so, and in such an holy Catholic shrine, mystifies me, unless his personal faith and judgment were somehow defective enough (though, of course, not entailing what, through the Holy Spirit, would enabled John Paul II to perform the duties of the papacy and to avoid the promulgation officially and ex cathedra of error during his papacy) to self-excuse such a syncretistic act. As I mentioned in the other posting, this was a religious event, not a diplomatic one, so John Paul II’s status as head of state (of the Vatican) would not be a justifiable motivation for what he did. I can only assume that the well-known generosity of his personal sentiments could have led J.P. II to do, unwisely however lovingly, such a terrible thing, surely the low point of what, in other respects, was a notable and fruitful papacy. John Paul II fell into other syncretistic acts during his universal episcopacy, seeking to show good will ill-advisedly, but this would seem to be the worst of them.

Anyway, we have a Pope firmer and wiser in the faith now, Benedict XVI, one less willing to compromise with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or with outright polytheists and pagans to such a compromising degree. I prefer not to dwell over-long on this incident, of John Paul II’s papacy; it is grievous to recall what transpired at Assisi on that occasion, and not at all edifying to mull over.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[rguntner]

You wrote:
Well, that is the beauty of the doctrine of papal infallibility: some popes may be of depraved character or make terrible mistakes in choice and behaviour, such as John Paul II’s dreadful syncretistic sacrilege of the basilica of St. Francis in Assisi, but the Holy Spirit shields popes from making, ex cathedra, pronouncements on faith and morals that are heretical. I have difficulty seeing how the pope’s syncretistic behaviour at Assisi could be dismissed on the basis of his being an head of state! That was a religious event, not a political one.

I cannot verify my intimations that John Paul II was not quite right, spiritually, and I would not denounce him on the basis of the subjective feelings that I have had about him. As for the closest contact that I had with him, I was trapped in an huge crowd on a major thoroughfare in Ottawa when he was making a papal visitation there, and despite my efforts to flee, I had to behold him as one in the crowd; that is all, nothing more. This indeed happened before my exorcism, so you are right to point out that demonic deception could be the cause of my fears and sense of panic on that occasion; I know that I suffered other some supernaturally induced deceptions during those years. Catholics do not have to hold in a king of personal reverence prelates who are of dubious character or who do things tht are unwise; one respects the office (of the Pope, of bishops, etc.) despite what one thinks of lor knows about the occupant. You are right about that “fast-tracking” to canonisation and it is understandble, given how much good John Paul II accomplished politically, but I just question that such secular achievements should be the basis for canonisation!

Anyway, God bless Pope Benedict XVI, who is doing so much to reverse so many sad trends since Vatican II. He has a fine mind and is a great prelate!

Pax, Jerry Parker

Jerry,
I did a little research and found out that on 27 October 1986 and January 2002, Pope John Paul II gathered in Assisi with more than 120 representatives of different religions and Christian denominations for a World Day of Prayer for Peace. I tried to find out if anything was said by JP II that was controversial or if any pagans participated in the ceremony. I couldn’t find anything. Are you miffed because the ceremony took place in a sacred Catholic shrine or that it took place at all? If it took place outside the basilica would you still feel the way you do? I read the statement that JP II read to the participating members of the 2002 meeting and couldn’t find anything controversial. Is this the ceremony where he apologized for the Church’s persecution of the Jews and for the crusades against the Moslems or did that happen elsewhere?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**You wrote: ** I did a little research and found out that on 27 October 1986 and January 2002, Pope John Paul II gathered in Assisi with more than 120 representatives of different religions and Christian denominations for a World Day of Prayer for Peace. I tried to find out if anything was said by JP II that was controversial or if any pagans participated in the ceremony. I couldn’t find anything. Are you miffed because the ceremony took place in a sacred Catholic shrine or that it took place at all? If it took place outside the basilica would you still feel the way you do? I read the statement that JP II read to the participating members of the 2002 meeting and couldn’t find anything controversial. Is this the ceremony where he apologized for the Church’s persecution of the Jews and for the crusades against the Moslems or did that happen elsewhere?​

Well, I was not thinking so much about what the Pope said at that event in the basilica of St. Francis at Assisi. However, placing items holy to pagan and other non-Christian faiths on the very altar was an awful thing to do. Surely such things could have been placed elsewhere in the basilica if he and the authorities of the basilica felt that they needed to be there at all. One offers up Jesus Christ in the Mass on the altar; pagan representations and cultic objects should not be there, ever. Period! That is sacrilege and I was by no means the only one to think so.

There still is so much to digitise from those years for the Internet. I cannot track down what I read at the time. I was quite preoccupied with my then imminent secret humanitarian mission to Kurdistan (Turkish sector), under the auspices of some local churches and of the P.K.K., so I was not so attentive to and able to follow up on what I read and heard about what happened in Assisi as I would have been able to do otherwise.

Thanks for your further information and for your concern!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[sonettegarbin]

Guntner,

**You wrote: **

You remind me of; Acts 17:22-24 (GW). Paul stood in the middle of the court and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious. As I was going through your city and looking closely at the objects you worship, I noticed an altar with this written on it: ‘To an unknown god.’ I’m telling you about the unknown god you worship. The God who made the universe and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth. He doesn’t live in shrines made by humans,

In my opinion the situation referred to was similar to what happened at Assisi. Believers amongst real necromancers and unbelievers and their idols - resulting in the conversion of … how many?.

 

[rguntner]

Guntner,

Well, I was not thinking so much about what the Pope said at that event in the basilica of St. Francis at Assisi. However, placing items holy to pagan and other non-Christian faiths on the very altar was an awful thing to do. Surely such things could have been placed elsewhere in the basilica if he and the authorities of the basilica felt that they needed to be there at all. One offers up Jesus Christ in the Mass on the altar; pagan representations and cultic objects should not be there, ever. Period! That is sacrilege and I was by no means the only one to think so.

There still is so much to digitise from those years for the Internet. I cannot track down what I read at the time. I was quite preoccupied with my then imminent secret humanitarian mission to Kurdistan (Turkish sector), under the auspices of some local churches and of the P.K.K., so I was not so attentive to and able to follow up on what I read and heard about what happened in Assisi as I would have been able to do otherwise.

Thanks for your further information and for your concern!

Pax, Jerry Parker

What churches would be giving humanitarian aid to a socialist terrorist organization like the P.K.K.? There would seem to be a clash of ideals here. Christian love vs. communist ideology! Those dudes are some rough costomers. Did they appreciate your help? Did you feel intimidated at all?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sonnettgarbin,

You wrote (regarding events like that at Assisi, which led to sacrilege): In my opinion the situation referred to was similar to what happened at Assisi. Believers amongst real necromancers and unbelievers and their idols - resulting in the conversion of — how many?​

Wow! You have a powerful way with words! Indeed, believers mixing with genuine necromancers and unbelievers and their idols (and idolatrous trappings)! That is just what that event in Assisi was. And, as ever in these compromising “oecumenical” and “inter-faith” events, conversion to Christ is not even sought, much less achieved. These are the happenings of those who do not care one bit for evangelism! As for the Pope, his ministry should be about matters od substance, about conversion, and about universal preaching (spoken, written, lived), not about provoking syncretistic spasms of good will among all and sundry, Christian or pagan.

As for the answer (an obvious one, of course) to your rhetorical question: nobody converts due to such events, certainly not to genuine conversion of the likes of what the Holy Scriptures express.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[matthewtan]

Dear Jerry,

God bless! I am not so sure about syncretism by the late Pope JP II. I check Zenit.org and it said that Pope Benedict said “the initiative of my predecessor of holy memory, John Paul II, who in 1986, brought together here the representatives of the Christian churches and other religions of the world, for a meeting of prayer for peace,”"

Nothing was mentioned about the fallability of the late Pope.

2 May I have yr permission to copy yr comments and forward to Zenit.org for clarification?

"ZE07061809 - 2007-06-18
Permalink: zenit.org/article-19914?l=english

Spirit of Assisi Is Not Syncretism, Affirms Pope

Says It Is “Evangelical” to Unite Acceptance and Faith

ASSISI, Italy, JUNE 18, 2007 (zenit.org).- Benedict XVI clarified that the spirit of peace among religions promoted by St. Francis and Pope John Paul II is not religious syncretism.

This was one of the main messages during the German Pope’s pilgrimage on Sunday to the city of the saint. The pilgrimage marked the 800th anniversary of Francis’ conversion.

“I cannot forget, in the context of today’s celebration, the initiative of my predecessor of holy memory, John Paul II, who in 1986, brought together here the representatives of the Christian churches and other religions of the world, for a meeting of prayer for peace,” said Benedict XVI at the end of his homily during the Mass celebrated in the lower square outside the Basilica of St. Francis.

He continued: "It was a prophetic intuition and a moment of grace, as I mentioned a few months ago in my letter to the bishop of this city on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of that event.

"The decision to celebrate that meeting in Assisi was inspired by the witness of Francis as a man of peace, who is looked upon with admiration, even by those of other cultures and religions.

“At the same time, the light of the poor man of Assisi which shone upon that event was a guarantee of its Christian authenticity, given that his life and his message clearly show his choice for Christ, refuting a priori any temptation to religious indifference, which has nothing to do with authentic interreligious dialogue.”

Benedict XVI said that the “spirit of Assisi” continues to spread throughout the world since the 1986 event. He called it a spirit “in opposition to the spirit of violence, the abuse of religion as a pretext for violence.”

The Pope added: "Assisi tells us that faithfulness to one’s own religious conviction, faithfulness above all to Christ crucified and risen, is not expressed in violence and intolerance, but in sincere respect for the other, in dialogue, in a message that calls out for freedom and reason, in working for peace and for reconciliation.

“It would not be evangelical, nor Franciscan, to be unable to unite acceptance, dialogue and respect for all with the certainty of faith which each Christian, like the saint of Assisi, is called to cultivate, proclaiming Christ as the way, truth and life of mankind, the one and only savior of the world.”

"

 

[rguntner]

What churches would be giving humanitarian aid to a socialist terrorist organization like the P.K.K.? There would seem to be a clash of ideals here. Christian love vs. communist ideology! Those dudes are some rough costomers. Did they appreciate your help? Did you feel intimidated at all?

Jerry,
I misread your last entry. Please disregard the last statement. Here is my revised statement which I tried to post after the time had expired:

That was a strange collaboration. Some Christian churches working with a socialist terrorist organization like the P.K.K. to help the Kurdish people. There would seem to be a clash of ideals here. Christian love vs. communist ideology! I understand that those dudes are some rough customers. Did they appreciate your help? Did you feel intimidated at all? How did the Kurdish people in that region react to your presence? Did they understand your mission and did they have a better appreciation for the Christian faith or was it just a major PR coup for the P.K.K.?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**You wrote: ** What churches would be giving humanitarian aid to a socialist terrorist organization like the P.K.K.? There would seem to be a clash of ideals here. Christian love vs. communist ideology! Those dudes are some rough costomers. Did they appreciate your help? Did you feel intimidated at all?​

I was not fully aware at the time of the humanitarian mission of just how much the P.K.K. was involved in its funding. I knew that it was made possible by Kurdish patriotic organisations, of which I was involved in more than one. Anyway, the P.K.K. has had a chequered past. Before Abdullah Öjalan’s supremacy in the organisation, it had gone through a Marxist phase which retreated under his leadership. After his capture and arrest, it reverted, devoid of the restraint of his active leadership, to aggressive guerrilla tactics that he had discouraged during his freedom; in fact, the P.K.K. declared quite a number of unilateral cease-fires, and it was always the Turks who broke such truces. Now it is the other way around; it is the hardline P.K.K. forces who break Turkish cease-fires. Liberation movements tend to be in constant flux, unlike so many stratified attitudes on alike the left and right in the U.S. that inhibit perception of what really is happening in the world.

Don’t believe all that you hear or read in the heavily partisan U.S. press, which tends to side with the U.S.’ allies, no matter how awful they are, and this includes with racist and Kemalist (essentially fascist) Turks, whose strangle-hold on Turkish politics Recep Tayyip Erdrogan for now is resisting. The “neo-con” bias, whether total or limited, of mainstream American journalism leads to a lot of distortion in American news reporting. I would advise you to resort to C.B.C., B.B.C., Radio-France, Libération, Le Monde diplomatique, Global Outlook, and other sources, electronic and/or printed (not to mention “Alternative” ones) if you really want to know what goes on in the world.

It is a delusion, a compromising one, of religiously conservative Americans, that alligning with the political right is alligning with God, when often neo-con causes are deeply hostile to justice and to Christian truth, something that grieves me as much as it irritates. Given what the P.K.K. was like and what it was promoting during the 1990s, I have no reason to regret any association with them, however repulsive it would be now to allign with the P.K.K.

Anyway, C.A. is not really the place for many of the political debates that rage in secular society, so I would prefer not to get into exchanging rants about these matters. Remember, too, that I live in Québec, not in the U.S., and feel no sense of loyalty to the established American order of things!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**You wrote: ** *I misread your last entry. Please disregard the last statement. Here is my revised statement which I tried to post after the time had expired:

That was a strange collaboration. Some Christian churches working with a socialist terrorist organization like the P.K.K. to help the Kurdish people. There would seem to be a clash of ideals here. Christian love vs. communist ideology! I understand that those dudes are some rough customers. Did they appreciate your help? Did you feel intimidated at all? How did the Kurdish people in that region react to your presence? Did they understand your mission and did they have a better appreciation for the Christian faith or was it just a major PR coup for the P.K.K.? *​

I replied to the earlier form of your text before this revision (thanks!) appeared on this C.A. forum. You can apply my response as appropriate, so I won’t belabour matters.

There was no “clash of ideals” between church and P.K.K. liberal socialist convictions that were in the ascendency (over its earlier Marxism) at the time of my Kurdish humanitarian mission.

I had no feeling of constraint at all from the Kurds who faciliated what I did in Turkish Kurdistan. The Turkish police and military were spying on me (and it was they, not the Kurds of any or no political persuation, who were intimidating, to no avail), but we always managed to outwit them. There was a very strong Christian element to my mission, which was one of dialogue as well as of practical help. It amazes me still to recall the many encounters that I had with Muslim imams (from simple village imams to very intellectual ones); I even managed to convice two of them (the best educated ones) that the doctrine of the Holy Trinty is true, even according to the (muddled) teachings of the Qur’an.

There was much good will (without doctrinal compromise on either side) between myself, a professing and practising Christian, and the Kurdish clerics and lay people with whom I came in contact. There was great appreciation for this Christian as well as practical concern for the Kurds, frequently expressed and acted upon, to the extent possible. It was a wonderful, if at times frightening, experience. I already have mentioned what touches on the Kurdish-Armenian holy site of Egil in a much earlier posting on another C.A. forum. That was incredibly inspiring.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Matthew Tan,

**You wrote: ** *Dear Jerry, God bless! I am not so sure about syncretism by the late Pope JP II. I check Zenit.org and it said that Pope Benedict said “the initiative of my predecessor of holy memory, John Paul II, who in 1986, brought together here the representatives of the Christian churches and other religions of the world, for a meeting of prayer for peace,”"

Nothing was mentioned about the fallability of the late Pope.

2 May I have yr permission to copy yr comments and forward to Zenit.org for clarification?

"ZE07061809 - 2007-06-18
Permalink: zenit.org/article-19914?l=english

Spirit of Assisi Is Not Syncretism, Affirms Pope [who] Says It Is “Evangelical” to Unite Acceptance and Faith

ASSISI, Italy, JUNE 18, 2007 (zenit.org).- Benedict XVI clarified that the spirit of peace among religions promoted by St. Francis and Pope John Paul II is not religious syncretism.

This was one of the main messages during the German Pope’s pilgrimage on Sunday to the city of the saint. The pilgrimage marked the 800th anniversary of Francis’ conversion.

“I cannot forget, in the context of today’s celebration, the initiative of my predecessor of holy memory, John Paul II, who in 1986, brought together here the representatives of the Christian churches and other religions of the world, for a meeting of prayer for peace,” said Benedict XVI at the end of his homily during the Mass celebrated in the lower square outside the Basilica of St. Francis.

He continued: "It was a prophetic intuition and a moment of grace, as I mentioned a few months ago in my letter to the bishop of this city on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of that event.

"The decision to celebrate that meeting in Assisi was inspired by the witness of Francis as a man of peace, who is looked upon with admiration, even by those of other cultures and religions.

“At the same time, the light of the poor man of Assisi which shone upon that event was a guarantee of its Christian authenticity, given that his life and his message clearly show his choice for Christ, refuting a priori any temptation to religious indifference, which has nothing to do with authentic interreligious dialogue.”

Benedict XVI said that the “spirit of Assisi” continues to spread throughout the world since the 1986 event. He called it a spirit “in opposition to the spirit of violence, the abuse of religion as a pretext for violence.”

The Pope added: "Assisi tells us that faithfulness to one’s own religious conviction, faithfulness above all to Christ crucified and risen, is not expressed in violence and intolerance, but in sincere respect for the other, in dialogue, in a message that calls out for freedom and reason, in working for peace and for reconciliation.

“It would not be evangelical, nor Franciscan, to be unable to unite acceptance, dialogue and respect for all with the certainty of faith which each Christian, like the saint of Assisi, is called to cultivate, proclaiming Christ as the way, truth and life of mankind, the one and only savior of the world.”*​

Well, whether by distancing himself discretely from John Paul II’s syncretism or simply by “putting the best construction” upon the matter, it is good to know that Benedict XVI himself does not condone syncretism, as, despite this news dispatch, I still feat that John Paul himself did, on several occasions.

As teens and “twenty-somethings” say, “Whatever—”

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[rguntner]

**You wrote:

There was no “clash of ideals” between church and P.K.K. liberal socialist convictions that were in the ascendency (over its earlier Marxism) at the time of my Kurdish humanitarian mission.

I had no feeling of constraint at all from the Kurds who faciliated what I did in Turkish Kurdistan. The Turkish police and military were spying on me (and it was they, not the Kurds of any or no political persuation, who were intimidating, to no avail), but we always managed to outwit them. There was a very strong Christian element to my mission, which was one of dialogue as well as of practical help. It amazes me still to recall the many encounters that I had with Muslim imams (from simple village imams to very intellectual ones); I even managed to convice two of them (the best educated ones) that the doctrine of the Holy Trinty is true, even according to the (muddled) teachings of the Qur’an.

There was much good will (without doctrinal compromise on either side) between myself, a professing and practising Christian, and the Kurdish clerics and lay people with whom I came in contact. There was great appreciation for this Christian as well as practical concern for the Kurds, frequently expressed and acted upon, to the extent possible. It was a wonderful, if at times frightening, experience. I already have mentioned what touches on the Kurdish-Armenian holy site of Egil in a much earlier posting on another C.A. forum. That was incredibly inspiring.

Pax, Jerry Parker**

You are correct in your assumption that I am influenced by the American mainstream media too much. We Americans often tend to be Jingoistic in our world view. I will take your suggestion and investigate some of the alternative press you mentioned. This is why I like corresponding with you. You approach things from a prospective that is entirely foreign to me. My questions may appear to you at times to be confrontational and antagonistic. I do this because I have discovered that you will not back away from any of my questions and you will stand up for what you believe in. You have also challenged me to reexamine my view of the world. My primary purpose for being on this site is to learn. Besides, every oyster needs a little irritant to produce a pearl. Keep sending me those pearls Jerry!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Guntner,

**We wrote: *Jerry: * There was no “clash of ideals” between church and P.K.K. liberal socialist convictions that were in the ascendency (over its earlier Marxism) at the time of my Kurdish humanitarian mission.

I had no feeling of constraint at all from the Kurds who faciliated what I did in Turkish Kurdistan. The Turkish police and military were spying on me (and it was they, not the Kurds of any or no political persuation, who were intimidating, to no avail), but we always managed to outwit them. There was a very strong Christian element to my mission, which was one of dialogue as well as of practical help. It amazes me still to recall the many encounters that I had with Muslim imams (from simple village imams to very intellectual ones); I even managed to convice two of them (the best educated ones) that the doctrine of the Holy Trinty is true, even according to the (muddled) teachings of the Qur’an.

There was much good will (without doctrinal compromise on either side) between myself, a professing and practising Christian, and the Kurdish clerics and lay people with whom I came in contact. There was great appreciation for this Christian as well as practical concern for the Kurds, frequently expressed and acted upon, to the extent possible. It was a wonderful, if at times frightening, experience. I already have mentioned what touches on the Kurdish-Armenian holy site of Egil in a much earlier posting on another C.A. forum. That was incredibly inspiring.

**Guntner: You are correct in your assumption that I am influenced by the American mainstream media too much. We Americans often tend to be Jingoistic in our world view. I will take your suggestion and investigate some of the alternative press you mentioned. This is why I like corresponding with you. You approach things from a prospective that is entirely foreign to me. My questions may appear to you at times to be confrontational and antagonistic. I do this because I have discovered that you will not back away from any of my questions and you will stand up for what you believe in. You have also challenged me to reexamine my view of the world. My primary purpose for being on this site is to learn. Besides, every oyster needs a little irritant to produce a pearl. Keep sending me those pearls. Jerry!​

I deeply appreciate your humility, Guntner. I hope that I have that virtue, too, in what I write, though it is easy to be irritated with mostly badly informed (and, unlike you) intransigent Americans whose minds are in captivity to the decadent and lazy U.S. mainstream media. (Real investigative reporting is now very rare in such U.S. media, though it flourishes elsewnere.)

When I looked for what I had written for C.A. about Egil, I found that it was not there. I posted those messages about (or partly regarding) Egil as a pilgrimage site (for Christians and Muslims alike, potentially for Jews, too, although one hopes that those Talmudists will stay away) when I still was new as a user of C.A. fora, so I probably made some technical blunder. That whole matter is too enormous in importance to try to repeat here.

There is always some internal instability within the P.K.K. Kurds indeed are mostly Sunni Muslims, but there are many who are Alawi (an Islamic sect strongly mixing Zorastrianism with Islam, and whose adherents tend to be far more radical and inclined to Marxism), Zoroastrian, Yezedi (of another faith that mingles Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Christianity), and some Nestorian and Chaldite Christians. When I was most actively involved in Kurdish political movements, the Sunnis predominated, but the Alawis constantly were agitating to take over control of the P.K.K. I suspect (although I am no longer sufficiently intimate with Kurish liberation movements really to verify) that the Alawi are in the ascendent presently, since the P.K.K. is reverting to its early, more rigidly Marixist-Leninist stance, which the Alawi favour. I won’t go into more here, for now, unless you want to continue discussing the P.K.K. (and also not to exceed the maximum length of C.A. fora answers, with those long quotes above) I won’t go on further here.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[kenofken]

*"Well, whether by distancing himself discretely from John Paul II’s syncretism or simply by “putting the best construction” upon the matter, it is good to know that Benedict XVI himself does not condone syncretism, as, despite this news dispatch, I still feat that John Paul himself did, on several occasions.

As teens and “twenty-somethings” say, “Whatever—”

Pax, Jerry Parker*

So now we’re accusing John Paul II, who was about as liberal as Archie Bunker, of syncretism because he showed some goodwill now and then? What would be an acceptable posture of the church toward non-Christians in your eyes? Perhaps the Catholic-Jewish relations of 1490s Spain? “Convert or die.” or better yet “Convert but die anyway since we don’t really trust your sincerity.”

Your hearty dislike of syncretism poses a thorny problem for Catholicism: ALL of your most dedicated followers in Latin America and Africa are heavily into syncretism. As Catholic as they are, Latin Americans, at least the workaday poor rural folks, are 90% Catholic and 100% pagan to this day.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Keno,

*We wrote: * Jerry: Well, whether by distancing himself discretely from John Paul II’s syncretism or simply by “putting the best construction” upon the matter, it is good to know that Benedict XVI himself does not condone syncretism, as, despite this news dispatch, I still feat that John Paul himself did, on several occasions.

As teens and “twenty-somethings” say, “Whatever—”

**Keno: **So now we’re accusing John Paul II, who was about as liberal as Archie Bunker, of syncretism because he showed some goodwill now and then? What would be an acceptable posture of the church toward non-Christians in your eyes? Perhaps the Catholic-Jewish relations of 1490s Spain? “Convert or die.” or better yet “Convert but die anyway since we don’t really trust your sincerity.”

Your hearty dislike of syncretism poses a thorny problem for Catholicism: ALL of your most dedicated followers in Latin America and Africa are heavily into syncretism. As Catholic as they are, Latin Americans, at least the workaday poor rural folks, are 90% Catholic and 100% pagan to this day.**​

Well, Keno, John Paul was a “mixed bag” ideologically and religiously. Frankly, I do not care much, now that “he’s history”. What matters is that Benedict XVI, despite some mix in his own background, more consistently is taking a stand for the truth than John Paul II did.

It always is hard for Christians not to mix error or folkways with the truth. Of course, I am aware of the strong tendency to syncretism in Catholics (and of some other Christians, too) in Latin America and the Caribbean, but that does not mean that it’s right or, as syncretism, that it is Catholic. One should not condemn such confused faithful; rather, one should work to convert them more wholely and committedly to the Christian faith.

American Christians confect their own syncretisms, alas even many Catholics, as well as the sectaries and some Protestants, who “christen the American flag” along with, much more reprehensibly, Zionism, in making their own nationalist ideology (and that of the Zionist Entity) part of their faith. Other Christians excuse their hedonism by associating it with their faith (e.g. the gay M.C.C. sect or the pan-sexual modernists among the Protestant Episcopalians in the U.S.) The Baptists, along with other fundamentalists and with Pentecostalists, especially do the former (i.e., mix their chiliastic sectarian dogma with Zionism). But that is no more right than mingling Santeria (or necromantic spiritism) with Catholicism can be called right! Enough said (I hope)!

Pax, Jerry Parker