Only if one has an agenda. A balanced, reasonable person would see his statement in exactly the way he intended it and the context in which it was made.
The headline posted with this article is a bare-faced lie and journalism of the worst sort. It is deceitful in both its form and content. It is deceitful in its form because it implies some sort of official statement on the the Gaza crisis was made by Ravasi and the Vatican. There was no such statement. Ravasi gave a long discourse on the Pope's new book, "The Infancy Narratives" which deals with the early life of Jesus. This naturally included the story of the Holy Innocents. There was no discussion of the Gaza conflict. Period. There was no discussion of war. Period. Ravasi was addressing the issue of the sorrow of mothers who lose children and mentioned Gaza as a modern example. The issue was a mother's sorrow, not the attribution of blame for the war or a statement on who's suffering more.
This one aside was then seized on by Meiotti and made into a headline. Lousy, sleazy journalism. An expression of concern for mothers was twisted into a political hit piece.
The headline is also dishonest in its content. Meiotti puts words into the mouth of a cardinal, to whit "Israel is a baby-killer". Words which were never uttered and never intended. That's a complete disgrace but not unexpected for a plagiarist. Quite in keeping with Meiotti's style of journalism, though. He writes almost exclusively about Israel in nothing less than glowing terms in all circumstances and situations to the point that has to wonder about who pays him. Anything which can be even remotely construed in a negative light regarding the Pope and Catholicism is seized upon.
In post #81 above, I posted several examples of his delightful garbage. In this article for instance, he rants and raves because the Pope had the temerity to enjoy some Beethoven played by a Jewish composer, Daniel Barenboim. Since Barenboim has been critical of Israel in the past and the Pope entertained him, the Pope is therefore tarred and slimed and we get this headline "The Cruel Israeli Maestro Welcomed in the Vatican". Then there's this; "Did the Pope Help the Jews?". No prizes for guessing what that article contains.
Then there's this garbage which you posted. Do we see a pattern yet? I doubt it.
The liar is Meiotti not the Church.
Gaza kills Catholics all the time ...
No Gaza doesn't kill Catholics "all the time". I know of no cases of Catholics being killed recently in Gaza. You might be thinking of Iraq or Syria but what the heck, they're all Arabs, right? In the former case it's actually .....uh.....the USA which has played a huge part in the catastrophe of the killing of Christians. Tell the truth. You hooted and cheered when Dubya said he was going to take out Saddam. Be honest.
As for Syria, we're doing our best to get the Islamic rebels into power there, too. They're "killing Catholics" but it doesn't seem to worry this country.
Israel targets those who kill the Catholics but Israel is the mean old bully.
Who called Israel a bully? Apart from you, I mean.
In case you haven't noticed there are almost no non muslims left in Gaza now and Jordan is about to be taken over by the muslim brotherhood so it won't be long before they start killing their catholics too (yet Catholics live in peace in Israel without anyone trying to kill them )
You mean like Iraq and Syria and Egypt? Ooops......we won't go there!
When it happens I am going to call you a hypocrite if I see you post about it too. (oh and Egypt is about to get a lot bloodier for Catholics too since all the worlds support for Gaza this week just helped Morsi consolidate his powers - there is a new Pharaoh in Egypt that hates Catholics and people like the Cardinal helped put him there )
Oh really?
That demands a little explanation. Tell us exactly how Cardinal Ravasi helped get the fundamentalists into power in Egypt? We're all ears.....
I know the US State Department was a big cheerleader of the "Arab Spring" but I didn't know the Vatican was behind it. Ditto for Libya. We gave Gaddafi the heave-ho and they showed their gratitude by killing our ambassador.
Ironically, the one man who truly understood what might happen in the Middle East if we stuck our noses in there, was Pope John Paul II. He told us to stay out of Iraq and on this forum at least he was portrayed as a Saddam sympathizer and a protector of dictators. Several thousand lost American lives later, we now know differently, don't we?
Your analysis is as clueless as I've ever seen and that's saying something. It does, however, help to explain why you'd post this piece of dross.
note that it claimed to be quoting Ravasi.
You yourself make admission of something alone those lines, right after denying it, by limiting it to "official" release, seeming to wish to have it both ways(?)
Please, the "there was no discussion of the Gaza conflict. Period" followed by "mentioned Gaza as a modern example" seems to be where many think Ravasi did indeed link Herod, and Rachel weeping in Ramallah, as found in (the official article)
which I agree helps give context, to help understand meanings, and does certainly not add up to the justifying the horrible headline.
For those not seeing the Cardinal's statements in full at the "official" source, and even if they do seeing also other quotes attributed, such as the Italy/ASCA sourced Yahoo article, it is not fully unreasonable for them to believe the Cardinal said "Gaza" thus ensuing misunderstandings do not necessarily equate to all the ill-will attributed to those whom have raised objections. Partially for that reason raise my own objections to such as the "no mention of Gaza" type of thing, upon which the later linkages employed by Meotti appears to much depend.
That Meotti leaps to remembrance of such other "things", arguably falsely implicating Ravasi along the way, as he put it,
It's like Winston Churchill was attributed to having said;
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Please be patient, so that I may assist in honestly unraveling this slander.
The Vatican was a cheerleader of the "Arab Spring". From Pope says yes to Arab spring:
Speaking perhaps for the first time on this issue, Benedict XVI said, "In itself, the Arab spring is a positive thing: a desire for greater democracy, more liberty, more cooperation and a new Arab identity. This cry for liberty, which comes from a more culturally educated and professional young people, who want greater participation in political and social life, is positive progress, which has been hailed by Christians as well. Bearing in mind the history of revolutions, we naturally know that this vital and positive cry for freedom risks forgetting one aspect-a fundamental dimension for freedom-, which is tolerance of the other. The fact is that human freedom is always a shared freedom, which can only grow through sharing, solidarity and living together with certain rules." Hence, "it's important to see the positive elements in these movements and, do all that is possible to ensure that freedom is correctly conceived and corresponds to a greater dialogue rather than the dominion of one over the other.
As to the claim that Christians are not being persecuted and killed in Gaza, that is also not true. From http://voices.yahoo.com/christians-gaza-fear-their-lives-as-muslims-403365.html:
Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.
Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was "desecrated," Mussalem told the AP.
"Nothing happens by mistake these days," he said.
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.
I'm not all that interested in prolonging this thread, the course it took was utterly expected and the usual respondents to these things made their appearances. I don't think that the author of the article has any more of an "agenda" than some here who write almost exclusively about Roman Catholicism in nothing less than glowing terms in all circumstances and situations to the point that has to wonder about who pays him. We see this reality whenever any thread either starts out with or ventures into criticism of Roman Catholicism.
Insulting people because you dislike the content of their posts shows as weakness for your own argument as well as a common school yard bullying tactic. Don't believe it will accomplish what you might hope it will. If anything, it sullies the perception of your own online character.