The Vatican on Gaza: Israel is a Baby-Killer”

Not a word was heard from the Vatican all the years Sderot babies were in mortal danger. They began noticing the violence last week.

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people: “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.

The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.

Well let's dig 'ol Faber up and see if he agrees with your, uh, characterization (any changes good changes? while he himself favored adherence to plain understanding of scripture???) since he would be the prime example of what "someone like Faber" would be!

Yet there is mocking when pointing out the assassination.

No, I didn't protest too much...as any unbiased (any true scotsman, hehheh) could plainly see. It's all here in black & white, with your own proving mine.

More than a bridge too far you take it, (slandering all whom dare to not be a Romanist) for not even every Anglican of today is happy with the direction some are taking things, not unlike some well informed Roman Catholics, faithful to the precepts of the Lord as they best understood them , were happy with the selling of indulgences, and other excesses or mistakes of past centuries during the times in which those occurred.

For now, some are hanging on, hoping to fight for what is right, from within. Rome is not the only place they may seek shelter, when it comes to deciding to flee, simply because you yourself "swam the Tiber".

"I'm sure you are familiar with the saying attributed to Augustine that says: It the major things - UNITY, in the minor things - LIBERTY, in all things - CHARITY (LOVE)."

The actual quote; "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas", is literally translated as "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion". It was never written by St. Augustine. It was in fact spoken by Marco Antonio Dominis, a 16th century Croatian apostate in support of the Reformation. The attribution to St. Augustine was yet another fabrication by John Wesley.

It does beg the question as to what is necessary and what is uncertain, though. The notion that unity is more important than communion and doctrine is only important to the many disparate factions who were more concerned with what it takes to BE Protestant and united in opposition to the Church than to BE Christian.

It does not matter the degree to which "faithful" Catholics believe or follow it. For Catholics liberty means the freedom to do what we ought, not what we want.

Peace be with you.

If people are guided by the Holy Spirit they do not reverse themselves or claim that "Christian Liberty" applies whenever they're caught in a contradiction. The Holy Spirit never leads anyone into a contradictory position from one day to the next or one decade to the next.

I agree. Since you are now a faithful Roman Catholic ask your local bishop why certain Popes in the past did exactly as you condemn here. Ask him to tell you why Pope Alexander VI kept his mistresses handy near the papal chambers and made his illegitimate son a Cardinal or why Pope John XII gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife. Then there was Pope Benedict IX who was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries." Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts." His life prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies. In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.

There was Pope Julius III who was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed. According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".

I'm sure your helpful bishop will give the standard pat answer that "all have sinned" and "Christ came to save sinners" or "the Church is a place for the sick not the healthy" and so on. Yet, these few instances of the many that I could have described are the actions of the leaders of the Christian world (according to Rome) and who, it is claimed, are divinely appointed to their positions as "successors to St. Peter". Did the Holy Spirit not know of the character quirks of these men? Did God somehow not have any idea what these men were going to do? When the College of Cardinals got together to seek the will of God in choosing the next Vicar of Christ, did they ask the Holy Spirit to guide them in this decision?

It's a fine thing to sit in judgment over Christians that do not bow their knee to Rome and accuse them of being their own "popes" and worshiping their own "most high and holy self" when they desire to only follow the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet when an honest look is taken of the history of the organization that demands full and faithful obedience, it should be obvious that it is ONLY Jesus Christ who deserves the honor, worship and glory. Though Jesus established his body of believers on earth to be the ground and pillar of the truth, he also ensured that we had the Holy Scriptures as the container of that truth. If any "church" is not faithful to those truths, they cease to be the buttress of it. There IS no such right, by reason of office to be THE Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which can always be exercise unhindered (Catechism, Para 882). There is a HIGHER authority and genuinely faithful Christians will trust in the Word of God before the word of men.

A slight correction...you said

"What His Majesty wanted to hear was a counter to John Henry Newman and the Oxford movement. Faber and others were happy to revive..."

Faber's book was written in 1825. Newman's work dedicated 1850 addressed in 1850 to to the Party of the Religious Movement of 1833. as seen on the title/dedication page.

Which means your portrayal of it as a counter to Newman is historically incorrect, for it was more fully the other way around. Now that Faber's work itself was a counter, a defense as it were to other earlier Roman Catholics whom came to sow doubt among the Anglican's, is correct as he explains in the preface to his own work, which I've brought full pages of here, and previously included links for .

Not written by Augustine. Correct. With early expression found in de Dominus.

But used by Pope John XXII in LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE AD PETRI CATHEDRAM 1959
[official translation]

Religious Controversy
71. The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark.(25)
72. But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.

we find the "must recalled with approval" usage of the "apostate's" invention!

John XXIII in the preceding paragraph citing Cf. J.H. Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, vol. I, lect. X, p. 261s.

When the previously underlined question was posed

Will the quotation Lera brought rough translation for, be specifically re-translated?

and you replied with the condescending, dismissive, insinuatingly insulting

They are always translated into a number of languages including English. If you want to be fair and accurate you would wait for that before forming an opinion. However, that will not permit you to manipulate the Cardinal's words to be whatever you want them to be. You do have a choice. I know what an honest man would do.

did you realize that the "rough translation" including a particular Ravasi statement then in reference was from this source http://it.notizie.yahoo.com/papa-card-ravasi-grido-strage-innocenti-risuona-vittime-150800913.html which being as it is an independent news agency that quoted Ravasi, the church will in no way be providing "always translated into a number of languages including English" resulting in making the entire mess of the reply given me, an inaccurate statement, for none of it applied to what was specifically at hand?

Newman was well known for his tracts and lecturing long before he wrote a work that was a compilation and elaboration of his years of lecturing and writing tracts.

Maybe this will help:

Work .... work .... work ..... work .... write book organizing and elaborating on all that earlier work.

You see, it was Newman speaking, lecturing, and writing tracts, even prior to the anti-Catholic laws being repealed in 1828 that upset those in the nobility who didn't like the ideas Newman was popularizing among the clergy and church hierarchy because they included a lesser role for the nobility. That's exactly why the Crown and nobility were anxious to revive old and well worn anti-Catholic lies and slanders and popularize them again since they couldn't stop the repeal of the anti-Catholic laws. They were quite happy with having the Anglican Church under their thumb and hoped that by slandering the Catholic Church once again they would stop Newman and those who agreed with him in their tracks. They were trying to keep the idea of the Anglican Church needing to return to it's roots and original doctrines from becoming an acceptable and popular topic of discussion.

Newman was the focus of what came to be called, “The Oxford Movement”, because he was lecturing and writing tracts. He didn't incorporate "The Oxford Movement, Inc." and only then start printing tracts or little books to put in doctor's waiting rooms. He was already writing the tracts and lecturing before the anti-Catholic laws were repealed and as his tracts became popular a great many people became began to ask why the Anglican Church had modified so much of it's original teaching. I know it's a difficult concept, but Newman worked for years before he wrote a book that combined, organized, elaborated on his lectures that had not been published as tracts, and so on, all in a single book.

Apparently the sort of folks who dig up and try to re-animate long dead anti-Catholic writers aren't familiar with the concept of prolonged effort culminating in a compilation and elaboration of that prolonged effort. Nor are they familiar with the concept of someone trying to close the barn door before the horse gets out which is what Faber and others were trying to do as soon as the anti-Catholic laws were repealed.

Those of us who have come out of Catholicism have every right AND duty - just as you assert you have -...

Ahhhh....the missing link in your posts for which I was grasping. That helps me a lot.

Thanks.

The Vatican's stance regarding the tinderbox in the Middle East is indeed worthy of discussion but my aims on this thread were rather more limited and specific; i.e. to show that this article was a cheap hit piece without getting into the wider question.

Since you raise it, however, you can be sure that the fate of Christians in the Middle East is extremely important to the Vatican. Not too many people care about this; neither the secularists in the West, nor the Muslims and while Israel generally tolerates their presence, I doubt they'd shed too many tears if Christians disappeared. With this in mind, the Vatican is painfully aware that any violence in the Middle East usually results in Christians being the suffering innocents caught in the crossfire and this is certainly an overriding concern.

Who speaks for them, if not the Vatican?

My concluding remarks on this thread are that you should factor this in when considering any official Vatican pronouncement on the Middle East. To repeat a point I made up thread, this was undoubtedly a major consideration for Pope John Paul II when he warned us to stay out of Iraq. His good intentions were completely misinterpreted, however, and he was accused of being in bed with Saddam.

Things aren't always what they appear on the superficial, Freeper level.

Those of us who have come out of Catholicism have every right AND duty - just as you assert you have -...

Ahhhh....the missing link in your posts for which I was grasping. That helps me a lot. Thanks.

You're welcome. It is no secret and I have never tried to hide it - not here nor in any other threads in which I add my thoughts. I've been a FReeper since 2005 and my posting history is replete with my personal testimony of my conversion to faith in Jesus Christ. If this was the "missing link" for which you were "grasping", all you had to do was ask.

WRT the Vatican being the only one "speaking for" all the Christians in the Middle East, I disagree. There are numerous denominations involved with missionary work in that part of the world that are not Roman Catholic. Christians have many organizations speaking for them and the Christians in the United States support them financially as do others around the world. Just because the countries are predominantly Muslim, there is no shortage of brave, Christ-loving people who are willing and able to preach the good news of Jesus Christ to them - including the Catholic Church.

Who Will Save the Christians in the Gaza Strip?
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3181/gaza-christians
by Khaled Abu Toameh -July 20, 2012 at 5:00 am

But according to Christian families, the world does not seem to care about their plight. "We only hear voices telling us to stay where we are and to stop making too much noise," said a Christian man living in Gaza City. "If they continue to turn a blind eye to our tragedy, in a few months there will be no Christians left in Palestine. Today it's happening in the Gaza Strip, tomorrow it will take place in Bethlehem."

Gaza Christians Claim Forced Conversions July 16, 2012

Among Gaza’s 1.7 million people, barely 1,500 Christians remain.

“If things remain like this, there’ll be no Christians left in Gaza,” said Huda Al-Amash, mother of one of the converts, Ramez, 25. She sat sobbing in a church hallway alongside her daughters, Ranin and Rinad, and a dozen other women. “Today it’s Ramez. Then who, and who will be next?”

Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses Kimberly West -Jun 18, 2007

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/23/gaza-christians-hamas-cancelled-christmas

Of the 1.5 million Palestinians now living in the Gaza Strip, fewer than 1,400 are Christian and those who can are leaving. The church hopes reconciliation will bring them back. There hasn't been a Christmas tree in Gaza City's main square since Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in 2007 and Christmas is no longer a public holiday.

Karam Qubrsi, 23, and his younger brother Peter, 21, are the eldest sons in one of Gaza's 55 remaining Catholic families. Both wear prominent wooden crucifixes. "Jesus tells me, 'if you can't carry my cross, you don't belong to me,'" Peter explained. It's a demonstration of faith that has caused him some trouble.

He describes being stopped in the street by a Hamas official who told him to remove the cross. "I told him it's not his business and that I wouldn't," Peter said. After being threatened with arrest he was eventually let go, but the incident scared him.

Pope: yes to Arab spring, no fundamentalism and weapons
by Amina Makhlouf
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-yes-to-Arab-spring,-no-fundamentalism-and-weapons-25820.html Beirut (AsiaNews) - Speaking to journalists on the plane taking him to Beirut this morning, Benedict XVI said that the Arab spring was "a positive thing"

Archbishop (gently) corrects pope on Arab Spring
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/archbishop-gently-corrects-pope-arab-spring

tThat’s a somewhat more skeptical note than the line offered by Benedict, who said that “in itself the Arab Spring is a positive thing." t“It’s a desire for greater democracy, for greater liberty, greater cooperation and a renewed Arab identity,” the pope also said, calling the movements in the Arab world “a very positive and healthy thing, also for us Christians.”

In Egypt, US should support removal or Mubarak
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/egypt-us-should-support-removal-or-mubarak

As a Catholic, I am very disappointed in what I am hearing in regards to the Vatican. What the hell are they thinking? Would they prefer to have the Palestinians in control of Jerusalem? I’m sure that the Palestinians would respect the rights of the small pocket of Christians that live over there as well as our Holy sites. Not!

I’m not saying that the Christians over there are treated wonderfully by “some” of the Israelis, however, I trust the Jewish people in Israel far more than I would ever trust the Palestinians to respect my fellow Christians and our places of worship. The Palestinians have proven themselves to be animals and no different than the garbage responsible for 9/11. They strapped a bomb to a teenage kid with Down Syndrome for crying out loud.

I love my Church, but I am very, very disappointed.

Yup, we do not have to adhere to this Cardinals view points. I know that as a Catholic I certainly do not!

Israel has been a very good ally to the US. If we were attacked now and we asked for their help they would give it to us. They would do so even after being disrespected and stabbed in the back by our President and his administration.

I’m personally at the point in my life where I use my own mind when it comes to social justice and politics in general. I’ll take my cues from the Church in regards to it’s teachings and decrees.

I would hope that the people on this thread would not make sweeping generalizations about my Church and it’s people based on something that a Cardinal said. It is his opinion and not an official Church Decree. I for one am very fond of the Jewish people and feel a kinship with them through our scriptures. There are many within the Catholic Church that feel the same way.

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.