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.
No it wasn't. The most accurate description of the Pope's position based on the interview on the plane to Lebanon, of which you have posted excerpts is that of a qualified support. A support for greater democracy given the conditions mentioned. That does not justify the term "cheerleader". The Pope raised a number of reservations concerning fundamentalism and religious rights. The Vatican never at any stage urged Arab leaders to step down, as this country did. It never supported the sending of US warships to the coast of Libya to facilitate the fall of Gaddafi. The US was certainly a cheerleader. And still is. It's still working to get Assad out of Syria.
As to the claim that Christians are not being persecuted and killed in Gaza, that is also not true.
I never made that statement. I was responding to the statement that "Catholics are being killed all the time in Gaza". That is false. The number of Christians in Gaza is miniscule and the number of Catholics still less. There simply aren't enough for them to be killed "all the time". There is no ongoing massacre of Christians in Gaza. Their life is difficult as it is in most countries in the Middle East but I know of no deaths in the recent past.
As if that has anything to do with Ravasi's words and the isssue raised. What sort of logic is this? Catholics are being killed in Gaza "all the time"..... the Israelis are actually helping Catholics by killing Palestinians... therefore Ravasi had no business mentioning the pain of mothers, including Palestinian mothers, who lose their children....therefore the Vatican must be supporting Hamas....therefore the headline at the top of this story is correct...
Would that be an accurate summary of both of your positions?
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.
The strength of the Catholic apologetic upsets some. It's often unanticipated and usually unwelcome.
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.
I don't have a fan club and I don't plan on starting one. I long ago ceased worrying about popularity. I'm Catholic and I defend the Catholic Church from lies. Attack it and there will be a response. Count on it.
It only takes a few minutes of critical reading and research of his other works to see exactly what the author’s agenda is, and it sure isn't pro-Christian.
Everyone who chooses to participate in the Religion Forum has an agenda and it is easy to see what the agenda is of those who embrace the age old principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when they climb into bed with Giulio Meotti and Hillel Fendel.
Why else would some seek out Catholic topic threads and attempt to use it, like some kind of St. Groundhog’s Day experience, to re-rationalize and re-justify their decision to leave the Church? If, as they believe Jesus is OK with it, why care about convincing those of us who have held fast about their superiority?
Why would some instantly choose to believe and defend the worst about the Church based upon the a fabricated slur by Arutz Sheva and yet spend hours every week over the course of years denying and arguing what the actual Catholic dogma, doctrine and history is with actual Catholics, both clergy and Master Catechists alike? Why do some present themselves as knowing everything there is to know about Catholicism while reciting only the lies that can be found on anti-Catholic websites?
Why would some continue to spout lies besmirching the Church and deny it is anti-Catholic? Why would some search the internet for hours looking for a single corroborating anti-Catholic snippet or example of a fallen Catholic while ignoring the preponderance of the evidence of the good done by the Church and its clergy? Why can some NEVER find anything good to say about the Church?
The decent thing would be to admit the haste and error in attacking Cardinal Ravasi, but I have not come to expect much decency in this forum. Like Marshmallow, I too have an agenda, but I am not deceptive or in denial as to what it is. I am here to defend the truth.