Posted on 12/13/2011 9:55:16 PM PST by dangus
I pray I haven't been guilty of the sin of calumny against a pope! In several Free Republic threads over the years I took as an accepted fact that the Pope kissed the Koran, and in several, commented that the Pope had erred on the side of peacemaking, by making this unscripted gesture of respect. I was surprised by finding some denials of this event.
Those who believe the Pope kissed the Koran apparently include the man who was the Patriarch of the Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) Church at the time, Raphael Bidawid: "I renewed our invitation to the Pope because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect.
Finding that quote, originally from a reputably Catholic source, seemed to clinch the issue for me. But then I noticed something: All of the other pictures of the Koran that I found are very plainly labelled, usually in Arabic, "Koran."
All the images of the pope kissing the Koran are stills from the same image, which is in pretty poor resolution. It is clear, however, that the stylish imprint on the book, while reminiscent of the Koran, is not actually the Arabic script that appears on the Koran.
The next thing that struck me is that as I examined the "Koran" that the Pope kissed is that it looked like a binder. Sure, it's a green book with fancy caligraphy embossed on the cover, but who puts the Koran in a binder?
Sure, you THINK you see the pope kiss the Koran, but I bet you also THINK you see him do so in front of the Muslim who gave it to him. Nope. The man in the picture is a Christian. Which brings up the next question: If it was the Koran, did the Pope know this? It's common Arab protocol to kiss a gift one has received, and the Pope could easily have been simply following protocol respectfully, and not recognizing that the gift was, if it was, a Koran. Has anyone ever read anything which confirms that he Pope knowingly kissed the Koran?
Holy confusion? Beatification, canonization are different (Catholic Caucus)
Vatican to encourage greater caution in opening sainthood causes
Pope clarifies Church’s traditions, norms for canonization; announces new instruction
They Need A Miracle Will a future pope relax the rules for sainthood?
Role of Miracles In Sainthood Eyed
Saint-making Pope is ready to ditch the miracle clause
Contribution to a Canonization
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Canonization of Saints: Current Canonization Process, Biblical Description of Miracles
Amen that
The most-often heard apologetic at the time was that the Pope may not have known it was a Koran when he kissed it. Now we're hearing that (maybe) it wasn't even a Koran at all.
Does this mean that JPII didn't know it wasn't a Koran when he kissed it?
The deeper they try to dig, the worse it looks for them.
Nice try
“The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian”
“Pope John Paul the Great kissed the Koran because he wanted to show the world that all Religions ultimately serve the one God; we may know him by different names and to greater or lesser degrees - there is but one God. We are the ones mist blessed to know him uniquely in Christ Jesus, but we must not rubbish other faiths because the don’t know him. “And there are other sheep of mine, not of this flock....””
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2006/05/why_did_pope_jo.html
“Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir, professor of Islamic Studies at the Université St. Joseph in Beirut and the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, seconded Allen’s assessment. He also noted that while Pope John Paul was given to making gestures intended to show respect for Muslims – such as kissing the Quran or visiting a mosque – he was not always sensitive to the way people perceived those gestures.
“The pope kissing the Quran was a shock for many Christians in the Middle East. They thought it meant that the Quran is divine, which is of course not what he meant at all,” said Father Samir.”
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20410
You church affirms he kissed the Koran.. Islamic websites at the time affirmed he kissed the koran..
Nice try to confuse and obfuscate though
When you say,
I do believe you miss the target. From what I can see, it was not dangus himself whom is trying to do any such thing.
I can't find the scolding comment that was made to him, by one of the Catholic contributors here, but it was in response to that, that he started this thread. That much is clear enough to me.
Unfortunately I cannot find the comment I am here referring to.
We'll get to the bottom of it eventually I hope, but it sure would help if that scold whom made the comment to dangus (on another thread) which lead to this thread being initiated by dangus, would stand up, be counted, and publicly admit that they were wrong.
THEN all this silly stuff would just "go away".
Excuse me, sir, but at this link http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=10415 provided on this very thread three times before your own above quoted comment, can be found such as:
Now what was that about "crowing"?
You said;
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the biggest projectionist(s) of them all?
They are not an official communication of The Church.
Now to the point of who was the guy in the picture, dangus has said he was a Christian.
There is no crowing of this in the Moslem world -- not in the Middle East, not in the Indian sub-continent that I have seen, read or heard of in their media or on the street when I have visited or stayed.
It’s wonderful to have world travelers like you who can give us first hand knowledge.
Thank you and God bless!
They even have books that they give to their kids to "teach them about other religions" and about Christians they say we worship 3 gods, they have their made up stories about Reverends, priests etc. who convert to Islam -- all made up. Now if this entire kissey-kissey was so true, there would be no end to the crowing. It would be more than our Calvinist etc. friends crowing here.
But the silence is deafening...
I cannot verify the authenticity of the information provided there concerning their claim of having a transcript of the interview --- but I had already alluded to that point previously in this thread --- so what is your point?
Are you trying to say there should at this time be reasonable doubt that the "kissed" book was not a Koran, on the strength of the information not being sourced from the Vatican?
Phhpt!
The FR contributor which I also addressed this reply to, in post #34, gave a link to and provided text of (from one "father joe") what looks to me to be sane and reasonable response to the controversy which was circulating after the news of the meeting, and the photo was originally published --
Check it out. You may find it edifying.
But the silence is deafening...
There was plenty of noise all over the internet concerning the event. Even here on FR, with the bulk of the commentary being by Catholics. The image has also been posted on numerous occasions, most often in "negative" or critical context.
It took only a few minutes of searching to find some Muslim commentary, the first I found included some "crowing".
The Truth stands apart from error !!!"
Interrupted by another poster there with
Which is a slight attempt at crowing, but honestly modified with "but we can only guess what was on his mind" part.
To which the original cock-a doodle-do spin doctor replied with;
excerpted from 123muslim.com
The claim that there was "no end to crowing" seems to imply there was none at all? There was some, (whether you heard it or not) which badly weakens your claims. I think your various thesis concerning "crowing", are beyond salvage at this point.
How about some sort of actual proof to the contrary, like a link to some sort of solid testimony that the book was not the koran?
Lack of that, is the only "deafening silence" to be heard in regards to this issue.
Maybe it was a Betty Crocker Cook Book he was actually kissing? Did anyone ever think of that?
The trouble is every time I type in “pope kissing” the first thing that Google pulls up is “Pope Kissing the Koran”. I can’t even find “Pope Kissing Betty Crocker” out there.
One of the ways we know the corruption of the gospel by Rome is their preoccupation with all things Mary and papal and relic... when not one of those things or people have eternal consequence ..John Paul has not one thing to do with our salvation or our eternity...
Go visit any place in the Moslem world and ask mullahs, intellectuals (or what passes for that there), the elite or even the common man if they think what you claim happened actually did and there is deafening silence.
Being an armchair opinionator doesn't cut it, 7MM -- visit the places and/or meet people really there or meet Moslems in the US and ask and then talk.
until then your words and opinions are as relevant as a DC democrat blogger talking about Texas Republicans.
Yes, then you would have read that "CatholicCulture.org is run by a non-profit (501 c 3) corporation, Trinity Communications. The board and officers of Trinity Communications are Catholic laymen"
They do not purport to be the source of record that your post attempts to put them as -- what they have stated is their point of view or opinion.
For your post to use them as a source of record is incorrect.
Fr. Joe also puts forth his point of view.
I've not read the official statement and neither have you -- to quote from others, is as valid as quoting from CBS about say Cain or Palin -- it's better to get the facts from the source. in the absence of that, everything else is speculation
"For your post to use them as a source of record is incorrect."
I showed the link to the source I was directly quoting, copying and extracting directly from, then the source which they had linked to.
In no fashion did I claim that they were "the source of record". If that was your impression, then the error was not mine, but in your own "mind reading".
In other places, can be found info mentioning that the story and the interview, came out through "Fide", which I found several mentions of but links provided at those sources, going to the original "Fide" article were broken.
I came across mention of the story being carried by Zenit (Z-net, as some put it) and was reportedly also carried by EWTN. Sorry, I didn't see the show...can't provide first hand witness.
There were many threads concerning the issue, here on FR too. LOTS OF NOISE. Nothing like the "silence" you tried to offer as explanation -- but which I see it appears you have abandoned as argument, other than to continue claiming there is silence in the Islamic world concerning it. I showed you there was some 'noise' there...enough to kill a claim of "silence" as part of your thesis of "it didn't happen" or it was some other book, or whatever blah, blah, blah empty wind of apologetic suits.
In the world of bibliography, there is enough evidence that if this was concerning a letter written by say, a 2nd century theologian to another, but the modern world lacked an extant copy, having only quotes and discussion following pertaining to the original letter, that would be seen to be quite strong evidence that that 2nd Century theologian's letter did actually exist at some point.
Perhaps you yourself could inquire of EWTN and Zenit, or some other source you may find authoritative. In fact, it may be incumbent upon you to do so, at this point?
I'm only able to quote those whose quotes reportedly came from them. It's sufficient enough for me. Since it is not for you, then unless you dig deeper, you are left with impugning CatholicCulture.Org as a source. Write them a letter. Tell them they have committed calumny against a pope.
That (the bolded portion) was the first line of this "vanity" thread.
You really are twisting things here when you say,
The interview transcript was presented as a transcript (or perhaps a portion) of questions and answers.
It was not an "opinion" piece.
You say,
What you, and Salvation are engaging in, is groundless speculation. What basis is there for the rationalizing and excuse making, but for folks like yourselves trying to desperately to do anything but face the facts?
And a sane point of view it is. It's clear enough that he accepted the story as it was reported, and that he was seeking to soothe those whom were troubled by the rash of published discussion and opinions concerning the instance.
I included a reference to his contribution both as counter to nonsensical claim(s) of "silence", and as a salve.
Pretty much your entire opposition to what I've shown you here, is ad hominem attack of sources, including myself.
Weak, baby, weak.
When you have something factual, something other than cheap shot attempts at "shoot the messengers=shoot down the message" argument, bring it.
Actually, I wasn’t so much scolded, as merely surprised to learn how flimsy the story was, and that some disbelieved it.
Apparently, on May 14, 1999, Pope John Paul II received a group of visitors from Iraq. At this time, he received a green book as a gift and kissed it. The IRAQI TELEVISION coverage reported that the pope had kissed the Koran. (In other languages, “kiss” has the same meaning as “embrace” does in English. In fact, the English word “embrace” comes from the French word, “embrace,” meaning to kiss.)
The Chaldean patriarch was then quoted by a single western news source, three weeks later, explaining that the pope was not, in fact, “embracing” Islam, but was embracing the largely Islamic Iraqi people. This was the same patriarch who would later call the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq the greatest miracle in the middle east in the last 2,000 years. The traditionalist and sedevacantist factions of the American Catholic church then went absolutely nuts, however, when they got wind that the Pope had kissed the Koran.
Since the Chaldean patriarch was a witness at the event, I initially took his witnessing at face value. Then I realized:
* The physical evidence of the event, apparently, is a single photographic still,
* The Koran was not presented to him by the organizers of the event (the Chaldeans), or as part of an event function, but merely on a receiving line,
* The Chaldean patriarch’s comments were not made after the event, but after the Iraqi news media spent weeks showing the image.
* The Vatican normally is quick with an explanation of any gestures the pope has made that they deem significant. There was never any mention from the Vatican; the Iraq news photo and the Patriarch’s comments were the only news sources.
This suggests to me that
(1) despite having been present in the room when this took place, the Chaldean patriarch may have been relying on Iraqi news coverage for his belief that the pope kissed the Koran, and
(2) even if it was a Koran, since it was a largely Christian delegation that the Pope was receiving, it may not have occurred to the Pope that that’s what it was, since it doesn’t look like a Koran, being in merely a binder, and doesn’t appear to be labeled as one,
(3) but at least we KNOW this was NOT the planned event that many make it out to have been. This was a pope kissing the gifts presented to him by people who he is trying to demonstrate how greatly he loves. If he KNEW it was a Koran, and he kissed it, it was a lapse of judgment; it was NOT a planned communication. This is what I’ve said all along, that it was a lapse of judgment. Now, I’m seeing where possibilities 1 and 2 are real possibilities. I was rather hoping someone would help me find out which one of the three was the truth.
Really, Alex? You show me ANY Western news source about the Pope kissing the Koran NOT based on this one interview. Because I couldn’t find a single one. Which is really odd, given that the interview happened WEEKS after the Pope supposedly kissed the Koran.
Anyone who has EVER mentioned the incident in any way, shape or form has as their sole information source that one interview, so on what basis is anyone going to deny it? I didn’t deny it; I only asked if anyone can confirm or deny it. And apparently not a soul on FR can do either.
Lots of speculation in the vanity, but no concrete evidence offered to the contrary. IMO this is a bit of wishful thinking on the part of Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.