“Seen as such (from it’s wider context), it’s not exactly equating Israeli Jews alone (and we who support them?), today, as an Herod archetype, but is seen in my own eyes, more in regards to how we on earth resist Christ, more generally, as the results of such grasps for “power” play out in the world today.”
‘Not Exact’ does not mean “false”, and that seems to be the debating strategy of those defending the Cardinal - if he didn’t literally say something, the article is false and outrageous. It may be slanted, but it is not false nor is outrage over the wording completely outrageous. There is apparently a larger body of quotation from the good Cardinal that day that will not be acknowledged.
If the Cardinal did not mean to imply what his outrageous statement implies, then it’s worthy of clarification by the Vatican. The argument that “he wasn’t on the clock” rings hollow.
The sure way to avoid debates like this is for people like the good Cardinal to focus on the souls and not the geopolitics. If he really doesn’t think Israeli children have souls, and that Israeli’s aren’t “baby killers” now would be a good time to point that out, in the name of compassion, and to preserve the credibility of the Catholic faith in the region. If the good Cardinal feels the need to condemn someone, pick the savages that deliberately place children in harms way - there is the apt comparison to Herod’s atrocity.
Thank you for your thoughtful and lengthy reply.
I can certainly agree that outrage of the Cardinal's wording, is not entirely outrageous, in and of itself.
The argument that “he wasn’t on the clock” rings hollow.
I don't know if anyone attempted that claim, in regards to Cardinal Ravasi. I myself though, did make some noises concerning Bishop Shomali's inclusion (his comments from last month in context of the graffiti sprayed on church buildings within his Patriarch).
That Bishop is right in the middle of much of this (not necessarily as to "fault" --- just to make myself clear to others) with previously his words in regards to bigotries coming from Torah-only Chabadnikim his own people face, being used again in the article as example of alleged anti-Jewish bigotry, turning things in some aspects, up-side down.
Though much of Israeli society is secular, more than religious, there is some polarity there too in regards to competition between another two schools of thought -- Israel for Jew & Goyim alike, or Israel for Jews only.
Bishop Shomali would know a bit about those sort of things, one can well enough imagine. It is difficult to speak of the extreme edges, and not have explanation & description of those edges, be taken as description and accusation of things more towards the middle, and of the far (secular?) edge. In recent experience, his words caused a kerfluffle, as spoken of here Bishop Shomali's disparaging statementes on Talmud are disturbing to friends of Christian-Jewish dialogue dated Oct. 7
The explanatory, Bishop Shomali clarifies negative statements about Israeli education dated Oct.16
As mentioned to another, even though this Bishop's follow-up response satisfies myself well enough, I can see how it may not others. Giulio Meotti the writer of the article heading this thread, doesn't offer much consideration at all towards Shomali though, neglecting aspects of Zionism with which that Bishop has been forced to contend.
I'd given the second link once before, adding it again to help any who might enter the thread, here. It's been a contentious thread, and few would want to wade through it, sifting for clues.
My thanks to you for having the patience to suffer through my previous too lengthy reply.