Why did JPII kiss the Koran?

[malphono]

John Paul II knew about the persecutions, and I believe one of the reasons for kissing the Quran was an attempt to please the Muslims and end any religious intolerance or persecution.

An attempt that failed miserably. Had they looked at history, they should have known better.

 

[redrosetea]

Only guessing, but the Catholic Faith does accept thoseTruths that exist in other religions. It does not accept those beliefs that it views as untruths. Although much of the Koran would probably not be accepted by the Catholic faith, there are some portions that would be regarded as truths. He may have been making recognition or acknowledgement of those common lines of faith.

There are also children of Abraham, and God promised to make of Ishmael a great nation

I think was just a respectful gesture from a man who loved everyone as Christ commmanded

 

[DavidPalm]

Equally importantly, that sign of respect, which is traditional in Middle Eastern countries, did no harm. Refusing, rejecting, or disrespecting the gift would have horribly poisoned relations with the Arab world, and probably increased the persecutions.

It certainly did harm; it scandalized Catholic faithful who weren’t yet jaded by such unheard of inter-religious gestures. And it has been pointed out that such kow-towing to Muslim sensibilities in this way actually makes you look weak in their eyes and in the end they don’t respect that.

Absolutely nobody has advocated “refusing, rejecting, or disrespecting the gift”. This is a too-typical “set up the opposite extreme as the only possible alternative” answer that we encounter in these discussions. I wonder if we can imagine some middle ground between scandalizing the Catholic faithful by venerating a blasphemous book with a kiss and scandalizing the Muslims by rejecting the gift outright? If one can’t admit that such a middle ground would have been more appropriate, for all concerned, then that would seem to leave us at a clear impasse.

 

[Lujack]

It certainly did harm; it scandalized Catholic faithful who weren’t yet jaded by such unheard of inter-religious gestures. And it has been pointed out that such kow-towing to Muslim sensibilities in this way actually makes you look weak in their eyes and in the end they don’t respect that.

Absolutely nobody has advocated “refusing, rejecting, or disrespecting the gift”. This is a too-typical “set up the opposite extreme as the only possible alternative” answer that we encounter in these discussions. I wonder if we can imagine some middle ground between scandalizing the Catholic faithful by venerating a blasphemous book with a kiss and scandalizing the Muslims by rejecting the gift outright? If one can’t admit that such a middle ground would have been more appropriate, for all concerned, then that would seem to leave us at a clear impasse.

What would the middle ground have been? Refusing to kiss the book would have been disrespectful, because it would indicate rejection of the gift. That’s how one receives an important book in the Muslim world, and not doing so would have been disrespectful.

Its like a middle ground between saying thank you and not saying thank you; there is no middle ground.

 

[malphono]

What would the middle ground have been? Refusing to kiss the book would have been disrespectful, because it would indicate rejection of the gift. That’s how one receives an important book in the Muslim world, and not doing so would have been disrespectful.

Its like a middle ground between saying thank you and not saying thank you; there is no middle ground.

Perhaps the “middle ground” is a politely western acceptance of the gift. End of story. DavidPalm is right on target:

DavidPalm:

It certainly did harm; it scandalized Catholic faithful who weren’t yet jaded by such unheard of inter-religious gestures. And it has been pointed out that such kow-towing to Muslim sensibilities in this way actually makes you look weak in their eyes and in the end they don’t respect that.

Their expectation is to be kow-towed to. Acquiescence is most assuredly a sign of weakness and subservience.

 

[DavidPalm]

What would the middle ground have been? Refusing to kiss the book would have been disrespectful, because it would indicate rejection of the gift. That’s how one receives an important book in the Muslim world, and not doing so would have been disrespectful.

Its like a middle ground between saying thank you and not saying thank you; there is no middle ground.

Don’t be silly. When a Muslim presents a Westerner with a gift, he doesn’t take offense if the Westerner doesn’t necessarily honor that gift in precisely the “right” way. In the West, we say “thank you” and we smile and that’s it. You really think that the Muslims would have gone away terribly offended if His Holiness had stopped short of kissing the book and simply accepted it according to gracious Western standards?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Only guessing, but the Catholic Faith does accept thoseTruths that exist in other religions. It does not accept those beliefs that it views as untruths. Although much of the Koran would probably not be accepted by the Catholic faith, there are some portions that would be regarded as truths. He may have been making recognition or acknowledgement of those common lines of faith.

Interesting insights.

Now I can find reason to say that some here should see JPII’s gestures as being heroic if not saintly for the implicitness of his symbolically kissing the inner good and potential for Christ that is present even in those terribly disfigured and inflicted with leprosy and error.

Another point I’d like to make too. People tend to judge by our own cultural norms. We Catholics need to remember that we are first Catholic and second American, or European or whatever. The Church is ANCIENT - older than most nations and government on the planet. The Catholic Church has its own unique culture that is a composite of ancient kingdoms and empires that we have been a part of. We have traditions that come from ancient Jewish roots as well as Byzantine and Roman empire roots and so on. It was not long ago that our popes wore magnificent Tierra Crowns reminiscent of the majesty of emperors and rather than the Bishop’s mitres now again in use. Where I am going here is that kissing as a sign of respect is also ancient. We Westerners are afraid to even hold hands in public anymore - its seen too personal and has other connotations now. In Arabia men holding hands is very common and open embraces in the streets and kissing on the cheek. So from the perspective of the majesty of the papal office (as Vicor of The Lord of Lords!) kissing the hand or the object of entrustment is actually an amazing sign of humility and endearment for a pope to do. What the photo does not of course convey is how the gift givers initially approached the pope. I would wager they respectfully bowed to the pope, waited for him to invite them to come closer or was escorted by an attendant, then kissed him on the hand or cheek before the gift was conveyed. So the gesture of kissing the gift would be an amazing act of humility and modesty in the protocols of state.

James

 

[albertziggy]

What would the middle ground have been? Refusing to kiss the book would have been disrespectful, because it would indicate rejection of the gift. That’s how one receives an important book in the Muslim world, and not doing so would have been disrespectful.

Its like a middle ground between saying thank you and not saying thank you; there is no middle ground.

Hmmm I wonder if presented him with a comic book as a gift, would he kiss it also?

To us Catholics, the ‘kiss’ has a profound meaning… you see a priest kiss the bible after the proclamation of the Gospel… or us kissing the crucifix on Good Friday…

 

[DavidPalm]

We Catholics need to remember that we are first Catholic and second American, or European or whatever.

Yes indeed. So as the poster above me has already broached, what does kissing a book mean in Catholic symbolic parlance? Answer that and you’ll find why many Catholics are scandalized by the Pope’s action.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yes indeed. So as the poster above me has already broached, what does kissing a book mean in Catholic symbolic parlance? Answer that and you’ll find why many Catholics are scandalized by the Pope’s action.

I admit I am not personally comfortable with it and I’d rather the pope had not made this gesture - even off camera.

But we have no way to know what was behind the kiss - for all we know he was getting close and whispering exorcim rites under his breath and blessing the book in the name of the Triune God; asking Him to bring a greater good out of it that leads to Catholic converts.

If St. Paul could use a pagan statue to an unknown God to prosetylize total heathens then who is to say that a pope could not use a book of partial truths to proselytize primitive faith Monotheists who have yet to discern that the double obligation of charity to both God and Man makes violence against one’s neighbor an incompatible means by which to please and worship God. Eventually the madness must yield to grace and reason.

Let’s also not forget that JPII could rightly be called “the kissing pope” since he was prone to kiss the tarmac upon every country he visited - even those countries that had dictators and peoples who were less than Christian in their majority populations.

Let’s also not forget that JPII consecrated the entire world to Mary to meet the requirements to prevent the wrath of God as revealed in the Fatima Secrets. Maybe JPII is kissing things in the certain light of knowledge that that consecration is already letting Mary do her part for Jesus’ mission to crush heresies. Perhaps JPII was simply kissing the Koran “goodbye” as a thing to soon be passing from human history.

Now wouldn’t that be just dandy?

James

 

[palmas85]

The lengths that some will go to to find justification for this action is amazing. Utterly amazing. The one that gets me are the ones who still say it wasn’t a Koran or that he really didn’t kiss it. Don’t see those so much anymore but every now and then one pops up.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The lengths that some will go to to find justification for this action is amazing. Utterly amazing. The one that gets me are the ones who still say it wasn’t a Koran or that he really didn’t kiss it. Don’t see those so much anymore but every now and then one pops up.

Well were are you going with this amazement palmas? As a Catholic do you want to publicly rebuke the pope without having all the facts behind it. As a default I trust the pope. You are not one of those sedevecantist who thinks the Pope in Red or Pope Michael or some other crackpot running around calling himself “the real pope” is the real pope and JPII is an impostor in league with a conspiracy do you?

James

 

[Seamus_L]

John Paul II was guilty of scandalous actions in the name of ecumenism on more than one occasion.

 

[brigid12]

Perhaps the “middle ground” is a politely western acceptance of the gift. End of story. DavidPalm is right on target:

Their expectation is to be kow-towed to. Acquiescence is most assuredly a sign of weakness and subservience.

JPII, in acquiescing, was following what Christ taught us. This was not a political meeting (or shouldn’t have been) where “our side” needs to show strength to “their side”.
What he did I don’t totally understand so don’t like, however that’s my own problem and not a problem with him. He didn’t explain himself to us so we need to act in the charity that Christ taught and not jump to rash judgement. Yes, it’s easy for me to do but it’s wrong for me to do!

 

[palmas85]

Well were are you going with this amazement palmas? As a Catholic do you want to publicly rebuke the pope without having all the facts behind it. As a default I trust the pope. You are not one of those sedevecantist who thinks the Pope in Red or Pope Michael or some other crackpot running around calling himself “the real pope” is the real pope and JPII is an impostor in league with a conspiracy do you?

James

What in the world are you talking about?

I spoke about those who will make the most ridiculous statements to justify why he did or didn’t do it. I never brought my own opinion into as to why he did it or what is rationale was. Just the mindset of those who seek to excuse the action in any way possible.

What were you thinking?

 

[I_Believe]

Well were are you going with this amazement palmas? As a Catholic do you want to publicly rebuke the pope without having all the facts behind it. As a default I trust the pope. You are not one of those sedevecantist who thinks the Pope in Red or Pope Michael or some other crackpot running around calling himself “the real pope” is the real pope and JPII is an impostor in league with a conspiracy do you?

James

Well, there went your credibility

I’d be breaking forum rules if I explained what I mean. So just read the bolded part of your statement and see if you can figure out what I mean.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, there went your credibility

I’d be breaking forum rules if I explained what I mean. So just read the bolded part of your statement and see if you can figure out what I mean.

I am not interested in trying to “figure out” why a person I was not even speaking to would take it upon himself to use oblique and arcane innuendos and assaults on my credibility that don’t form a rational motive from any imaginable perspective. If you are the peculiar sort who is inclined to conjure up indignation and who must use dread intrigue and veiled meanings to cut in on somone else’s conversation to gain attention I might suggest you go look for a playmate who likes to waste his time playing those sorts of games. I don’t and I don’t have a clue what you are talking about; and by your condescending tone I am disinclined to wasting my time doing the Chicken Dance with you just to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps what you need is a good game of solitaire to calm whatever it is that discomforts you? But if it’s personal (have we ever met before?) then PM me or just get over it.



James

 

[CentralFLJames]

What in the world are you talking about?

I spoke about those who will make the most ridiculous statements to justify why he did or didn’t do it. I never brought my own opinion into as to why he did it or what is rationale was. Just the mindset of those who seek to excuse the action in any way possible.

What were you thinking?

Oh I see. I just assumed that since your comment followed mine and you were being non-specific in your condescension and displeasure about “some people” that you were talking about me. I am somewhat relieved to see that you were not talking about me - how ridiculous of me to imagine that.

But in clarifying yourself, in-spite of the attempt to paint yourself as as voice of reason and objectivity and balanced critique on both sides of the issue don’t you think you just showed your true hand and are saying that you think the pope’s actions were inexcusable? Am I reading you wrong?

palmas85: Just the mindset of those who seek to excuse the action in any way possible.

In the end analysis, it always seems to me (if I do say so myself) that everyone, even those who would like to imagine themselves neutral always seem to have their own “ridiculous” opinions. What only ever appears as universally consistent in these matters is for anyone to imagine why everyone else can’t see how ridiculous it is to see a matter in the same way we ourselves do. What kind of mindset it that?

But thanks for sharing your own true opinion. At least we now know where you really stand.

James

 

[maurin]

An attempt that failed miserably. Had they looked at history, they should have known better.

another example of an attempt that failed miserably is the changing of the Mass (Bugnini himself said that ‘we must remove’ all barriers that keep them from converting to the Faith) to make it more ‘accessible’ to the protestants.

When will we ever learn?

 

[palmas85]

Oh I see. I just assumed that since your comment followed mine and you were being non-specific in your condescension and displeasure about “some people” that you were talking about me. I am somewhat relieved to see that you were not talking about me - how ridiculous of me to imagine that.

But in clarifying yourself, in-spite of the attempt to paint yourself as as voice of reason and objectivity and balanced critique on both sides of the issue don’t you think you just showed your true hand and are saying that you think the pope’s actions were inexcusable? Am I reading you wrong?

palmas85: Just the mindset of those who seek to excuse the action in any way possible.

In the end analysis, it always seems to me (if I do say so myself) that everyone, even those who would like to imagine themselves neutral always seem to have their own “ridiculous” opinions. What only ever appears as universally consistent in these matters is for anyone to imagine why everyone else can’t see how ridiculous it is to see a matter in the same way we ourselves do. What kind of mindset it that?

But thanks for sharing your own true opinion. At least we now know where you really stand.

James

Oh I see now. OK.

Sorry, that particular form of discourse doesn’t work with me. You may be able to draw some of the newer members in with this line of resonong but not me sorry.

Since it is well known, admitted by the Vatican and by the Imans who presented the Koran that it was in fact a Koran and not a book of Gospels, a Byzantine Bible or a Psalter those who attempt to explain the incident using that excuse are the ones who are burying their heads in the sand in their haste to vaslidate everything that the late Holy father ever did. In their eyes, he could do no wrong at all. And ythat is just as bad as saying he did everything wrong.

In mine, he was a good holy man. He was my Pope and I stayed in the Church despite the foolishness that happened during his Pontificate. In some areas he was truly awesome. When he faced down the the liberation theologists in Nicaragua and the communist government in Poland he was at his best. And he did give us the Indult. However, in some of his dealings with other faiths, he at least by his actions denied the truth and validity of the Catholic faith at the expense of being ecumenical I guess.

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.

Go try to pick and argument with someone else. I don’t want one and I don’t need one.