Catholic Church Western Appeasement Western stooges

POPE BENEDICT XVI’S PACT WITH THE DEVIL……..

 

It’s called Islam 101. The Vatican is playing with fire and it’s going to get seriously burnt. There is nothing to stop the mohammedan horde if the main institutions in the West lay down and bear their necks. A disgusting display to watch. Is the pope ready to switch sides or what?  KGS

NOTE: Now it’s clear why the Vatican is not speaking on behalf of the Iranian pastor slated for slow death strangulation for apostasy from Islam. The Catholic church has chosen its rotten path and they’re sticking to it. Talk about the Whore of Babylon.

Vatican’s pact with Islam

Ynetnews special: Italian journalist examines Vatican’s submission to political Islam

Giulio Meotti
Published: 10.02.11, 08:31 / Israel News

It has been five years since gave his controversial lectio about Islam at the German University of Regensburg. On September 12th, 2006, Joseph Ratzinger claimed that the god of the Muslims is both transcendental and unreasonable and he severely condemned jihad and the use of violence in the name of Koran. It was the only public event in which a Pope told the truth about some aspects of Islamic religion.

Benedict XVI made himself a central player in the post-9/11 era: His speech against the link between religion and violence, typical of Islam today, was not a mistake or a false step, as some observers wrote at that time. It was, rather, a vigorous attack against certain aspects of Islamic fanaticism.

The reaction to the Pope’s speech was a familiar spectacle: Threats, riots, and violence. From the religious leaders in Muslim majority countries to the New York Times, all demanded the Pope’s apologies. In the Palestinian areas, churches were attacked and Christians targeted. In the Somali capital, Mogadishu, an Italian nun was executed. In Iraq, Amer Iskander, a Syrian Orthodox priest, was beheaded and his arms mutilated.

In Islamic forums, Ratzinger was depicted like Dracula. He received many death threats: “Slaughter him”, “pig servant of the cross”, “odious evil”, “Allah curse him”, “vampire who sucks blood” and so on. The highest Islamic representative in Turkey, Ali Bardakoglu, declared that Ratzinger’s speech was “full of enmity and hatred.” The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood pledged “reactions worst of those against the Danish cartoons”.

[…]

Benedict XVI recently visited again his native Germany, but this time with a different agenda. Five years later, the Vatican adopted a pro-Islam course and has capitulated to fundamentalists. In a recent book written by German journalist Peter Sewald, Pope Ratzinger expressed “regrets” about the Regensburg lecture. The Vatican’s Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, buried the Pope’s lesson about Islam as “an archaeological relic.”

“The default positions vis-à-vis militant Islam are now unhappily reminiscent of Vatican diplomacy’s default positions vis-à-vis communism during the last 25 years of the Cold War,” writes George Weigel, a leading US writer about the Vatican. The Vatican’s new agenda seeks “to reach political accommodations with Islamic states and foreswear forceful public condemnation of Islamist and jihadist ideology.”

More here.

6 Responses

  1. “The default positions vis-à-vis militant Islam are now unhappily reminiscent of Vatican diplomacy’s default positions vis-à-vis communism during the last 25 years of the Cold War,”

    How about Nazism? This isn’t the first time that the Vatican is on the wrong side.

  2. IMHO placating, patronizing, apologizing, groveling, and treating Islam as just another religion will seem to smooth out relations now, but in the future the West and the Catholic Church will pay dearly. The fifth columns of Islam are already sowing the seeds of destruction in the UK, France, Spain, the Scandinavian countries, where the political class has refused to listen to reason, and see the facts laid out before them. They have basically ‘submitted to Islam’.

  3. the vatican is familiar with the emplyoment of violence against the innocent.
    they fondly remember the albigensian heresy and the resulting crusades and wish to return to those great days of unfettered power.
    they can only do that if they make some leeway for the mooslimes.

  4. There are too many PC/MC self proclaimed moral elites around who are in fact NOT left-wing, and who equally pander to Islamic supremacy.
    Such as PC conservative Christians who ‘naturally’ assume (from their own viewpoint) that Islam is a religion on par with other religious traditions that are in fact perfectly capable of integrating in Western societies. How many times do we still have to read about neocons, Scandinavian Lutheran figureheads, Anglican bishops, conservative Roman Catholics and others in the Christian communities seemingly forging alliances with the PC/MC left on issues such as Gaza, the downplaying of Christians persecuted in Iraq or Pakistan, or even assuming that a minimal presence of Sharia Law legislation in the Western world would benefit our society as a whole ?
    PC is not a monopoly of the left. In fact, within Christianity, there’s something more ominous going on. Both secularists and Christians separately are getting defragmented. Some Christians are typical proponents of the rigid ‘there can be no morality without religion’ lament. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for them to naively assume that Islam is a religion on par with Christianity that can act as a moral guideline to people’s lives. The logic derived from that would naturally imply that any type of secularism a priori runs counter to any type of morality (which from their viewpoint would be perceived as inherently religious above all else) and therefore it would be logical to side with Islamists. In other words, for some Christians it becomes clear that their priority lies with averting the spread of secularist humanism, and seeing as Islam claims to be an equally moral religion, they find some common ground ! On the other hand, there are Christian humanists like Robert Spencer, who is basically a theologian also. The big difference being that Robert lays emphasis on everything that makes Islam incompatible with modern society. In other words, the very inhumanity and dehumanization that are at the core of Islam as a totalitarian doctrine. Which basically means, that Robert’s point of view, although inspired by Christianity, is more easily understood by both those Christians and atheists alike that consider Islam as an ideology that runs counter to the upholding of fundamental Human Rights. Which means, in my mind, one doesn’t have to be a Christian nor a theologist to draw the same conclusion from looking at the Quran and trying to understand what it holds within. The core issue of such a debate is the preservation of Humanist ideals, regardless of what type of tradition such ideals are rooted in.
    And this is something that Robert clearly understands, just as I do. Although I am an atheist I have never found myself doubting anything that Robert has to say on Islam, because I find this perfectly congruent with my own ideas on secular Humanism. Alas, PC Christians belong to a long tradition within Christian churches to debase secularists and atheists as a basic piece of nasty rhetoric to keep the ‘us versus them’ spirit on the ethics front alive and kicking. Ironically, this is exactly why they would still root for those non-reciprocal interfaith or intercultural dialogues with Islam, side by side with those secular PC atheists that keep the myths of cultural relativism and political correctness going !
    So there you have it. When Humanist values are at stake, the main difference revolves around what one believes to be right. The preservation of human rights or the assumption that there can be absolutely no morality without religion ? Which means that in effect, there are both Christians AND atheists to whom the whole matter of human rights is in fact NOT the primary concern, making them both equally PC ! This is not a rift between ALL Christians vs. ALL atheists, but a rift between those Christians and atheists that want to preserve human rights within the established legal framework vs. those Christians and atheists that want to prioritize the vilification of all those that don’t adhere to idea that there can be no morality without religion, first and foremost. From the way Robert speaks it is quite clear that atheists and Christians alike CAN gather around the same core concept, without polarizing a debate among Christians and atheists, because those debaters at least acknowledge they have a common ground: human rights !
    Appeasing Islam = cataclysmic self delusion, regardless of who is practising it, regardless of it being inspired by geostrategical cynicism or downright stupidity/naivety.

  5. Doesn’t anyone find it suspicious that the Pope withdrew his statements right after he had a “private session” with Tony Blair?
    Tony Blair, the guy who’s Bohemain Grove vacation emails were leaked online?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *