Why did JPII kiss the Koran?

[Genesis315]

Indeed. As our Lord said Himself, For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man who is scandalized by them. Oh wait, that’s not how it goes…(Matt 18:7)

Right, woe to those who scandalize others. But this goes for the person committing the act, and for those who publish it again and again after. They partake in the scandal just as much. One of St. Alphonsus Liguori’s maxims of Christian perfection is as follows: “36. To speak well of all, and to excuse the intention when you cannot defend the action.”

Similarly, in the Dialogue, the Father tells St. Catherine of Siena that being scandalized shows self-love and a lack of honest self-knowledge in ourselves. If we are honest about our own sins–both past and present–we will never be scandalized by others. Here’s passage with another example from the Dialogue :

“Those who are in this sweet light know it, and remain constantly in peace and quiet, and no one scandalizes them, for they have cut away that thing by which stumbling-blocks are caused, namely their own will…‘Will you arrive at perfect purity, and be freed from stumbling-blocks, so that your mind may not be scandalized by anything?’ Unite yourself always to Me by the affection of love, for I am the Supreme and Eternal Purity…Another thing is necessary for you to arrive at this union and purity, namely, that you should never judge the will of man in anything that you may see done or said by any creature whatsoever, either to yourself or to others. My will alone should you consider, both in them and in yourself. And, if you should see evident sins or defects, draw out of those thorns the rose, that is to say, offer them to Me, with holy compassion; perceiving, moreover, that such apparent sinners may frequently have a good intention, for no one can judge the secrets of the heart of man. That which you do not see you should not judge in your mind, even though it may externally be open mortal sin, seeing nothing in others, but My will, not in order to judge, but, as has been said, with holy compassion. In this way you will arrive at perfect purity, because acting thus, your mind will not be scandalized in your neighbor…Such contempt and scandal separates the soul from Me, and prevents perfection, and, in some cases, deprives a man of grace.”

 

[DavidPalm]

And he did give us the Indult.

This was not the late Holy Father’s finest hour either, alas. He was told by his own commission of cardinals that no permission was necessary to say the TLM and he issued an “indult” anyway. The “indult” was a legal fiction, as our present Holy Father has now made clear. It was the ecclesiastical equivalent of a refugee camp where the occupants lived under the constant stigma of being second-class citizens in their own Church and it was wholly unjust. Justice precludes forcing people to get permission to do that for which no permission is necessary.

That being said, I actually don’t have any doubt that John Paul II’s intentions in this and in all of these instances were good. I do not think he was an bad man. But it is a stock feature of modern liberalism to look only at intentions, without recourse to the actual merits, let alone the outcome of a given course of action.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

He kissed the Koran because he was a Free Mason, a Modernist, and not really the Pope. Or so many of the websites would have us believe.:banghead::slapfight:

I love how people like to harp on this one incident when they probably have done much much worse. I know I have.

Memento, homo, quia pulvis es et in pulvem reverteris.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t know why he did those things, but I do believe that he had the best of intentions.

But good intentions do not always bear good fruit.

This is better.

So you really are not saying that you think the pope’s actions were inexcusable.

Bravo - I just knew we’d both see eye to eye.

By the way, speaking of fruit, did you read last year about the new Catholic Church being constructed and consecrated in Bahrain?

King of Bahrain Donates Land for Catholic church

Did you hear about the 6 million per year new Muslim converts to Christianity (Coptic) in the last few years?

Islam’s “Public Enemy #1”: Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.



Have a good day,
James

 

[SourGrape]

I love how people like to harp on this one incident when they probably have done much much worse. I know I have.

Memento, homo, quia pulvis es et in pulvem reverteris.

Good point, Volodymyr! After I began this thread, I realized there have been numerous posts on this topic in the past, and it seems most times, the discussion turns bitter against our late Holy Father. Thus, if I knew how, I would have deleted this thread before it turned sour as well! I simply wanted to know if the Vatican or Pope ever made a formal statement regarding this “incident.”

The other day, I began reading Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words (ed, Kondor, Louis, SVD, 16 ed, 2007) and am so impressed and humbled by the story of those little shepherds!

The following is an exerpt from that book regarding “Love for the Holy Father:”

Two priests, who had come to question us, recommended that we pray for the Holy Father. Jacinta asked who the Holy Father was. The good priests explained who he was and how much he needed prayers. This gave Jacinta such love for the Holy Father that, every time she offered her sacrifices to Jesus, she added: 'and for the Holy Father." At the end of the Rosary, she always said three Hail Marys for the Holy Father…(50).

 

[malphono]

This was not the late Holy Father’s finest hour either, alas. He was told by his own commission of cardinals that no permission was necessary to say the TLM and he issued an “indult” anyway. The “indult” was a legal fiction, as our present Holy Father has now made clear. It was the ecclesiastical equivalent of a refugee camp where the occupants lived under the constant stigma of being second-class citizens in their own Church and it was wholly unjust. Justice precludes forcing people to get permission to do that for which no permission is necessary.

That being said, I actually don’t have any doubt that John Paul II’s intentions in this and in all of these instances were good. I do not think he was an bad man. But it is a stock feature of modern liberalism to look only at intentions, without recourse to the actual merits, let alone the outcome of a given course of action.

Quite so.

 

[palmas85]

This is better.

So you really are not saying that you think the pope’s actions were inexcusable.

Bravo - I just knew we’d both see eye to eye.

By the way, speaking of fruit, did you read last year about the new Catholic Church being constructed and consecrated in Bahrain?

King of Bahrain Donates Land for Catholic church

Did you hear about the 6 million per year new Muslim converts to Christianity (Coptic) in the last few years?

Islam’s “Public Enemy #1”: Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.



Have a good day,
James

Of course his actions are excusable. As we know from scripture almost all actions are excusable.

Many of his actions however in the area of ecumenism and interfaith relations were just very badly thought out and didn’t have the effect that he probably thought they would have.
But there is really nothing wrong with errors in judgement and making mistakes. We all do it…

As far as the conversions to the Coptic faith, Coptics aren’t Catholics and are not in communion with Rome so I doubt the Holy Fathers actions or inactions for that matter had anything to do with such conversions. In fact if I am not mistaken wasn’t there some council at some point, maybe the Council at Chalcedon perhaps, that had something to do with the fact that the Coptic Church is aligned with the Orthodox Community rather than with the Holy Mother Church as it should be?

The building of a Catholic Church in Bahrain, not a fundamental Muslim stronghold by the way but much more of a westernized country, probably has more to do with the tremendous number of Filipino overseas workers in that country as well as many other Catholics who live and work there, many of them Americans. Bahrain unlike many Muslim dominated countries allows the free exercise of religion and has for many years.

Now, when a Catholic Church is built in Mecca or Medina or anywhere in Saudi Arabia, the seat and home of Islam by the way, then I might believe that the late Holy Fathers ecumenical and interfaith actions, particularly amongst the Muslims may have borne some good fruit.

Maybe.

 

[Yours_Truly]

This is better.

Did you hear about the 6 million per year new Muslim converts to Christianity (Coptic) in the last few years?

Islam’s “Public Enemy #1”: Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

Have a good day,
James

But notice how this priest is converting the Muslims. It’s not by kissing the Koran or telling them that “we all worship the same God”. He is converting them by exposing and refuting their errors and telling them the truth.

 

[palmas85]

This was not the late Holy Father’s finest hour either, alas. He was told by his own commission of cardinals that no permission was necessary to say the TLM and he issued an “indult” anyway. The “indult” was a legal fiction, as our present Holy Father has now made clear. It was the ecclesiastical equivalent of a refugee camp where the occupants lived under the constant stigma of being second-class citizens in their own Church and it was wholly unjust. Justice precludes forcing people to get permission to do that for which no permission is necessary.

That being said, I actually don’t have any doubt that John Paul II’s intentions in this and in all of these instances were good. I do not think he was an bad man. But it is a stock feature of modern liberalism to look only at intentions, without recourse to the actual merits, let alone the outcome of a given course of action.

However you have to look at the times when it was issued. Many if not most Bishops refused to allow it to be celebrated, most Priests were refusing to celebrate it, it was openly held up to ridicule and scorn by most progressives and those that wanted it were openly terrified of trying to get one celebrated.

So issuing the indult, as clumsy as it was, opened the door for what we have now. And remember even after the indult was issued Bishops routinely refused to allow it, some placed insane restrictions on it, as did Cardinal Mahoney among others and Priests were routinely pressured not to say it.

No, I think in that instance, the Holy Father did what he could. And lets all be thankful thathe did because without it, where would we be now?