Vatican calls Muhammad cartoon "blasphemous"

[dronald]

I understand that the Vatican wants us to act more ‘lovingly’ towards Islam, but why call a cartoon of a false prophet “Blasphemous”?

It’s not blasphemous; it’s Islam.

For hundreds of years Muhammad has been depicted in a not exactly pleasant light, many paintings referring to Dante’s inferno showing Muhammad in Hell.

Also, in the past Popes and Theologians have criticized Muhammad and Islam as evil, without hesitation. What has changed that the Vatican sees Muhammad depictions as blasphemous?

religionnews.com/2015/05/06/vatican-blasts-muhammad-cartoons-pouring-gasoline-fire/

 

[Dpoc41]

Says it all really

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice.
Please remain within the guidelines of inter-religious dialogue.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I would prefer that Catholic newspapers focus more on the merciless targeting, murder and raping of middle east christians, Catholics or otherwise.

As for Muhammed cartoons I am of the view that if you are going to go there then please be prepared for the consequences. Yes the violent backlash is unwarranted, illegal and outrageous but come on, it’s not exactly a surprise reaction. Cartoonists and artists need to use their common sense as well, carefully consider the repercussions for them and their loved ones.

They are right it is pouring fuel on the fire. Not sure what is accomplished by the pictures/cartoons other than a possible body count and no real dialogue or communication.

I wouldn’t call it blasphemous. It is considered blasphemy for Muslims but not for non-muslims.

For Catholics blasphemy is speaking against God in a contemptuous, scornful, or abusive manner or committed by thought, word, or action.

Mohammed is not God, therefore it is not blasphemous for a Catholic to be contemptuous or scornful of Mohammed. It may be ill-advised and a venial sin but it is not blasphemy.

 

[Deus_tecum]

It seems the Vatican is not immune from political correctness. Al Kresta on EWTN radio said something like “Mohammad IS a false prophet and I should be allowed to say he is a false prophet regardless of whether it offends certain people.”

 

[Neofight]

I hope responses which point to perceived flaws of both the Vatican and Islam, will also consider the fallen nature of the human race (including us Catholics).

Its not a matter of the precise definition of blasphemy, or the question of the truth of Islam.

On this very day, where the Gospel reading tells of Christ’s command that we love each other as he has loved us, we should be able to discern that the cartoon, or claims that Islam is “bad”, does nothing to show our obedience to Christ’s commandment.

Peace and all good!

 

[christofirst]

Maybe the Vatican is encouraging us to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The cartoons are blasphemous to Muslims, not to us as Catholics, but we should respect their beliefs, even though some of them do not respect ours. Antagonizing followers of Islam serves no good purpose, and it does not in any way seem Christ-like to me.

 

[TarkanAttila]

From what I read in L’Osservatore Romano, the person to blame for the comment “blasphemous” is the editor.

It’s not even in the main body of the article. It’s in the title:

“Sparatoria in Texas a una mostra di vignette blasfeme”
Shooting in Texas at an exhibition of blasphemous cartoons

And here’s the part no-one will read, so you’re not alone DRonald:

L’Osservatore Romano is largely autonomous from the Vatican but rarely publishes anything that does not have the tacit approval of Vatican officials.

Somehow I doubt that LOR is theologically precise all, or even most, of the time.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I hope responses which point to perceived flaws of both the Vatican and Islam, will also consider the fallen nature of the human race (including us Catholics).

Its not a matter of the precise definition of blasphemy, or the question of the truth of Islam.

On this very day, where the Gospel reading tells of Christ’s command that we love each other as he has loved us, we should be able to discern that the cartoon, or claims that Islam is “bad”, does nothing to show our obedience to Christ’s commandment.

Peace and all good!

It is possible to love muslims and criticise their faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Neofight]

It is possible to love muslims and criticise their faith. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sure it is, but to do so without charity towards them, and our own humility, we have denied the teachings of Christ.

Peace and all good!

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Sure it is, but to do so without charity towards them, and our own humility, we have denied the teachings of Christ.

Peace and all good!

Who is being uncharitable?

It is a fact that Mohammed is not God or a prophet to Catholics therefore any action by a Catholic which would be construed as ‘blasphemous’ by a muslim is not strictly speaking blasphemous at least not from a Catholic viewpoint.

I am not encouraging or condoning such behaviour however I feel these distinctions need to be made.

 

[Origen52]

It is blasphemous for Muslims, though they do not worship Mohammad, they worship God (Allah). It is rude and not a way to begin and continue dialogue with another monotheistic religion. It is mockery, not satire.

I don’t understand what corner of one’s soul is elated by desecrating that which others value. You can certainly disagree with anyone, but certainly people who follow Jesus should do so in a respectful manner.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

From what I read in L’Osservatore Romano, **the person to blame for the comment “blasphemous” is the editor. **

It’s not even in the main body of the article. It’s in the title:

“Sparatoria in Texas a una mostra di vignette blasfeme”
Shooting in Texas at an exhibition of blasphemous cartoons

And here’s the part no-one will read, so you’re not alone DRonald:

Somehow I doubt that LOR is theologically precise all, or even most, of the time.

Thank you for pointing that out Tarkan.

How the statement got credited to the Vatican is a mystery, as with most things that come out of Rome people assume it to be a Vatican approved statement.

 

[dronald]

From what I read in L’Osservatore Romano, the person to blame for the comment “blasphemous” is the editor.

It’s not even in the main body of the article. It’s in the title:

“Sparatoria in Texas a una mostra di vignette blasfeme”
Shooting in Texas at an exhibition of blasphemous cartoons

And here’s the part no-one will read, so you’re not alone DRonald:

Somehow I doubt that LOR is theologically precise all, or even most, of the time.

“L’Osservatore Romano is largely autonomous from the Vatican but rarely publishes anything that does not have the tacit approval of Vatican officials.”

Perhaps you can clear this up for me. Why would it be approved by “Vatican officials”?

 

[dronald]

As for Muhammed cartoons I am of the view that if you are going to go there then please be prepared for the consequences. Yes the violent backlash is unwarranted, illegal and outrageous but come on, it’s not exactly a surprise reaction. Cartoonists and artists need to use their common sense as well, carefully consider the repercussions for them and their loved ones.

They are right it is pouring fuel on the fire. Not sure what is accomplished by the pictures/cartoons other than a possible body count and no real dialogue or communication.

As an American/Canadian I highly disagree with this way of thinking. If anything, the fact that this specific topic will have people trying to end what is free speech shows that more of this should be done in order to not submit to those who would harm us for such events.

If Muslims believe they can silence satire/mockery/free speech, then it is our duty to satire/mock/speek freely until they accept that. We can never back down; no one is exempt from free speech, not Christians, not Muslims, no one.

However as a Christian I agree it’s bad taste and not done in love. The winning picture however I don’t think was hateful; it was quite clever and deserved first prize, and speaks to my first point.

 

[Allegra]

It think there is a difference between intelligent dialogue, expressing the belief that Islam is inspired by a false prophet and creating crude and disrespectful artwork that is only designed to demean others. One can legitimately criticize aspects of Islam and still remain in the confines of Christian charity. I disagree that the way to insist on free speech is to host events such as this. I think the way to insist on free speech is to imprison people who harass, intimidate, or hurt others who disagree with them.

 

[captainrick]

Rude as it may be, I don’t think making fun of a prophet is blasphemy - Prophets are not God. If someone made fun of Elijah or Isaiah, is that blasphemous? I don’t think so, although technically I may be wrong…

 

[TarkanAttila]

Thank you for pointing that out Tarkan.

How the statement got credited to the Vatican is a mystery, as with most things that come out of Rome people assume it to be a Vatican approved statement.

To quote Wikipedia:

A common error made by journalists and theologians is interpreting the texts of L’Osservatore Romano as if they were of official value for the Magisterium, the church’s teaching authority. They cannot have such a value unless a high-ranking bishop is writing a more solemn text, and not a mere theological opinion; otherwise, L’Osservatore does not have the authority to write or approve encyclicals and papal allocutions. For instance, a 2008 article expressed the wish that the debate on brain death be re‑opened because of new developments in the medical world. An official spokesman said that the article presented a personal opinion of the author and “did not reflect a change in the Catholic Church’s position”.

“L’Osservatore Romano is largely autonomous from the Vatican but rarely publishes anything that does not have the tacit approval of Vatican officials.”

Perhaps you can clear this up for me. Why would it be approved by “Vatican officials”?

That’s a fair question. I don’t know. I don’t even know what “Vatican officials” would “approve” of it, besides the editors.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

It seems the Vatican is not immune from political correctness. Al Kresta on EWTN radio said something like “Mohammad IS a false prophet and I should be allowed to say he is a false prophet regardless of whether it offends certain people.”

Yes you are free and legally allowed to call him a false prophet but please do it nicely I guess what some on here are arguing is that it would be uncharitable to do so.

My argument is the Truth is never uncharitable. If I were to call Mohammed a false prophet I would need facts/evidence to support that statement. I suppose a muslim would simply reply that Jesus wasn’t God or the Son of God and present their evidence to support their argument. I would not be offended by that counter statement.

Personally if I were an artist/cartoonist I would never deliberately draw a picture of Mohammed because first and foremost I have a daughter to raise. I don’t want her, myself or my husband to be harmed because of my actions. Selfish perhaps, but the only reason I would martyr myself is for the Catholic faith.

Secondly to a muslim that is offensive. However I defend the right of another person to draw what they please, they are adults and know what the possible consequences may be and are protected by law. Even those that draw outrageous pictures/paintings of our Lord and Our Lady, I forgive them for before the world persecuted me, I know that it persecuted Him first.

Thirdly, what does drawing a picture of Mohamed accomplish other than antagonise and whip up a frenzy?

 

[SyroMalankara]

There is a certain amount of idolatry here. One can make fun of, depict blasphemously, depict at all, etc… any and all but the one that Islamic fundamentalists say can’t be. They don’t even care when Jesus (who they call prophet) is blasphemed or depicted… or even God Himself, apparently. As long as the one who can’t be named is not depicted. If they should succeed provoking universal fear by their idolatry of the one, however, guess who the target will be next? Who is depicted in every Apostolic Christian Church, and even most protestant communities? … Yep… who is going to be accused of violating their man-made idolatrous “laws” against depictions? Virtually every church that calls itself Christian.

I say nip it in the bud … quickly… before it’s too late.