Pope rips anti-Christian tide in major foreign policy speech

Once again the pope is trying to distract public attention from the abuse crisis by suggesting that little things like genocide, fratricide, and "christian-cide" deserve our attention. Please tell him, John, that the only thing anyone on earth cares about is how much money our Christlike lawyers can pry from the Church before this goose stops laying golden eggs.

The problems in Muslim majority countries and Western countries are distinct.
There is an "inquisition" in the former, much like that that the roman church conducted in the west against "infidels" some centuries ago. In the latter countries the "dismissal" of the roman church is because of its irrelevancy and its own inner hypocrisy and pursuit of control, power and greed.

Words worthy of a C.E.O.

*sign*

This is one of our Pope's weaknesses. When Muslims and other Christians ask him to denounce, specifically, violence against Muslims and other religious people, he says he does when he denounces violence against Christians.

Yet this article, and so many befoe it, continually prove the Pope wrong: By only focusing on violence against Christians, even if his intention is broader, people are going to assume he's only denouncing violence against Christians, not against religious people in general.

Pray for the Pope and the Roman Curia, as well as the Bishops and their curias.

What a joke.
It's not anti-Christian bias..... it's anti-Catholic magisterium bias.

This pope and the one before him are the cause of this bias.
The way they handled and continues to handle the sex abuse scandal, has made the Catholic hierarchy a joke around the world. The sad truth is that the magisterium has lost all moral credibility and deserves all the scorn it gets, until it does something to earn back respect. Complaining about missing crucifixes is not the kind of spiritual leadership people are looking for!
Making the much flawed Jonh Paul II a "Blessed" will only increase the anti- magisterium bias... but the present pope will do it, because he thinks he is above all human judgement. Thus the anti- papal bias.
Bennie should stop complaining and start acting like a spiritual leader with the Gospel as his guide.

Pardon my English grammar, but the 12th paragraph is not a complete sentence. Starts with "While popes typically. . ." - I would like to know the final part of that sentence. I assume the meaning, but would like clarification.

“Christianophobia.” Yes. This is a problem; but it is small potatoes compared to the problem which Cardinal Claudio Hummes refers to when he writes: "A servant church must have as its priority solidarity with the poor,"--"Today more than ever, the church faces this challenge. In fact, effective solidarity with the poor, both individual persons and entire nations, is indispensable for the construction of peace. Solidarity corrects injustices, reestablishes the fundamental rights of persons and of nations, overcomes poverty and even resists the revolt that injustice provokes, eliminating the violence that is born with revolt and constructing peace."

Unfortunately, Muslims (Moors) have long memories and have not forgotten how they were persecuted by Christians during centuries past. "The chickens are coming home to roost.

"While popes typically offer broad moral principles in their foreign policy addresses rather than specific legislative recommendations, Benedict bluntly demanded that the anti-blasphemy law in Pakistan, which the country's small Christianity minority says is used as a tool of intimidation and persecution." Bluntly demanded what? You didn't finish the sentence. Demanded it be abolished? Be amended? Be revisited? Please finish the sentence.

I believe that some clarification of terms is in order. When the Pope refers to 'Christians' being assulted in these nations----he is NOT referring to Christians as Americans understand the term.

For most Americans, the term "Christian" refers to a anybody who tries to pattern their life after Christ, recognizes that Jesus is Lord and Savior, Jesus is the Son of God---2nd Person in the Trinity. We have a number of traditional Christian bodies (Episcopalian, Luthern, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptists) and non-traditional groups like the Pentecostal and Holiness groups that fill that definition. And, yes, Catholics are certainly in this group, too.

But when the Pope refers to Christians---he's not including the 'Protestants' in his concern. He is referring to CATHOLICS only---both of the Western rites and the Eastern rites. Are they being persecuted? YES, absolutely!

But the Pope isn't concerned for the other Christian bodies in these countries who are also being persecuted. He doesn't even see them. To be truly fair---ALL Christians should be included in this group. All should have the right to "freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and freedom of education, teaching and the use of the mass media.” If he is concerned about "Christianphobia" (and he is correct in being worried), then concern should be shown to ALL who acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

"In November, a Christian mother of four was sentenced to death ... ". Kind of sounds like Bishop Olmsted.

"The pope also insisted on upholding the “right to conscientious objection” on the part of Christian health
care workers ...". Kind of sounds like Sister McBride.

Hey, what goes around, comes around.

Changing the subject!

B16 is only doing what any politician does when things aren't going so good: change the subject; distract the weak minded; dump on a bogey-man.

All these nations that B16 has pointed-out for special attention are Islamic countries (even China has millions of Muslims within it's boarders).

This is not to say that Islamic countries have harbored for too long anti-Christian ideology. But when you put the Crusades on the scale of historic justice, it's still not even.

The Vatican's problem with China is that China treats the Vatican as what it is in reality: A foreign corporate state that is seeking to exert its influence in a political culture. The Chinese aren't buying all the Vatican's unctuous claims about religious freedom even though China is too sensitive about "foreign imperialist" influences.

Strong words!

God bless and strengthen our Holy Father Pope Benedict!

Let me see if I have this right, Holy Father.

When a soverign state governs its citizens based upon Islamic law and values that is reprehensible.

But, when another soverign state goverens its citizens based upon Catholic/Christian law and values, that is most laudable -- encouraged, if not demanded.

Is that what the Church is saying here?

One can most certainly agree wholeheartedly with this plea from B16. Unfortunately, members of some non-Christian religions have long memories of suffering similar fates at the hands of "Christians" in the past and might not be as open to his plea as we would like. Catholic hands are historically far from clean in these matters.

ON THIS TOPIC, the pope needs to speak out. Christians in the Middle East and in some other countries are being mistreated. I don't think it is so much about religious doctrine but cases of picking on minorities in a country. Minorities suffer everywhere and someone has to come to their defense outside their homelands to prod the countries' leaderships by world opinion.

Otherwise note "Benedict began by citing the plight of Christians in Iraq, where two-thirds of what was once the Middle East’s second-largest Christian population has vanished since the first Gulf War in 1991."

Actually, we have to credit George W. Bush, the self-proclaimed Christian U.S. president, for helping drive the Christians out of the Middle East. Just look at the statistics since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the repeated comments of Christian leaders there about its impact. You won't find Bush acknowledging that in his book.

Pope Benedict issued his message for the 2011 World Day of Peace observed on January 1 annually since 1968 on the theme "Religious Freedom, The Path to Peace". I have been disappointed that I see little notice of the observance of that day or the annual papal message in the Catholic press or even NCR or by American Catholics, clergy or lay. In this years message two sentences stood out for me. "There should be no obstacle should he or she (a person) eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all."(5) and "Fanaticism, fundamentalism and practices contrary to human dignity can never be justified, even less so in the name of religion."(7) It seems to me that this is an adoption of what I think used to be considered the American heresy: separation of church and state and freedom of religion including having no religion. I am glad to see that and regret to see the emphasis being given more to the persecution of Christians than to the message of religious freedom.

Can we get a better title than one using the verb "rips"? Every time the pope says something in the least controversial, he's described as either "ripping" or "blasting" something, both of which don't really get at what this pope -- or any pope in relatively recent memory -- does when speaking, even about controversial stuff. How about "expresses concern," or some such? Until the pope comes out and really scolds someone or something with great passion at the edge of unreason, let's not use "rips" and "blasts".

The conclusion that John Allen makes in this article regarding the Pope's
address is his own. No where in this speech do I find the Pope as being as
non-conciliatory as this conclusion would suggest. To call attention and plead for action in this matter was presented in a non-threatening way...and
I do not find using the word Christianophobia to describe the Pope's concern
anything but negative...as in Homophobia. The Pope did not use this language and to do so invites discension from his real point.

I'm glad this piece is called "Analysis" because I believe the underlying message opens itself to perspectives other than a clear "Christianophobia." It appears to me that "religious freedom and especially the defense of embattled Catholics" is the Vatican's "supreme diplomatic priority." I wonder how this gibes with what was put forth a couple of weeks ago which labled collaboration, dialogue with Islam as the top priority of the Vatican. I wonder also why the U.S. State Department was singled out for mention especially when the followup to that is the analytic conclusion "the price of admission to collaboration with the Holy See" is understanding that the official Church operates from a victim-perspective: "Christianophobia." This being the "price of admission" to collaboration - what does this mean for diplomacy?

Catholics remain the most persecuted people in the world and throughout history... you wouldn't know it by "history" books in schools or the various media.

I invite any Christian minister, theologian or member of the engineering profession to google "Affiliation of Christian Engineers" and contact me via its website about whether Christian engineers should be an intentional, collective, "salt and light" influence in their profession, mankind's largest and most global.

How is this relevant to religious discrimination? Nothing is stopping the engineering profession, via its members and its various professional societies around the world, from declaring something as "All engineers, everywhere, should enjoy full human rights, particularly freedom of religion, particularly within the engineering profession."

But I do not see this happening absent an intentional effort by Christian engineers - and I do not see this happening without an intentional effort by Christian religious leaders to prompt Christian engineers to do so.

substitute the word "Christians" for Jews, and go back 70 years and wish that Pius XII, had been so forceful...

While this was hardly the first time a pope has lauded religious freedom, Benedict’s defense of beleaguered Christians was unusually focused – reflecting a growing conviction in the Vatican that anti-Christian persecution around the world, sometimes referred to as “Christianophobia,” is taking on epidemic proportions.

Kudos and prayers of Thanksgiving for the Pope saying and meaning what needs to be said to the whole world.

Good article, Mr Allen.

The pope may in some respects be right, but it also assumes that Christianity's problem is fundamentally exterior. It is not.

so, like, you know, what he did to Father Boff, Father Kung, Father Balsuriya, and so many countless others we must not call anti-Christian hostility?

this was not a case of chickens coming home to roost? It is always the other guy, the bad guy, the anti-Christians guy?

"...specifically mentioning China and Cuba, both places where the Catholic church has a troubled relationship with an officially Marxist government."
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-31404
I'm not quite sure he's lumping CHINA and CUBA together in the same basket.

I wished that the Holy Father would also mention about the inhumane treatment of Catholics in Vietnam. Catholicism and other Christian denominations are badly treated via properties confiscation, people beaten at funerals, etc...

The Viet communist regime is following the model set forth by its northern neighbor, China, when it comes to religious liberty.

It's about time. Hope it does some good.

Dear John, "especially what many observers see as a rising global tide of anti-Christian hostility?" Many obsevers "in the Vatican" maybe, as you later make clear. I agree with the pope re the persecution of Christians in Muslim and Marxist nations but it would be nice if Benedict had also called for changes in the constitutions of Panama and other nations which make Catholicism the official state religion. And, as with the public schools in Italy, and the State taxes that support the Church in Germany, Canada and other nations, Benedict apparently likes dedicated State support for Catholicism as long as the Church, with "religious freedom in all its fullness,” can do whatever it likes, including, for example, discriminate against non-Catholic public school students or against gays (just as Islam, in Muslim nations, is fully free to discriminate against Christians.) Unfortunately, Benedict the sectarian wants freedom only for his own side.

Since I don't have access to the papal statement (it's probably somewhere on the web, but I can't find it), this comment might be off the mark. Still, I've been struck by the fequent failure of Roman statements in general to take any account of history (Benedict's statement on China a few years ago is a perfect example).
So the question of Rome's call for religious freedom needs at least a reminder that the Catholic Church has, for almost all of its long life, been an opponent of such freedom -- see, in the 19th century, for example, Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, or Gregory IX in "Mirari vos" (1832) which talks of the "absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt if one could find an unambiguous papal statement upholding religious freedom prior to John XXIII (and, of course,Vatican II).
Yet if earlier popes were wrong in condemning religious freedom, what can we learn from that? If the Roman Catholic Church changed its stand (as it clearly did) on this question, how might that help us address the question of others imposing limitations on religious freedom? Can Rome, using its own example of historical change, help teach others of the virtues of religious freedom?

Historia docet -- a bit of history would help us in this effort.

I totally agree with Pope Benedict on the dangers of "Christanophobia". It manifests in many ways all over the world and even in countries that were always considered principally Christians.
Killings of believers, restrictions in their rights, even disrespect in old European countries where the vacuum created by the absence of christian teachings in family and society is becoming an opportunity for Islamist extremists to penetrate the hearts of young people dissatisfied with their government institutions and way of life.
In all humans there is a search for a higher dimension and this void is unfortunately often used today to develop in dissatisfied youths instrumental ideologies of violence, conquest and intolerance. We need more World Youth Days, and also more awareness on the part of Christians that we all have a mission to live our Christian faith outside in the world and not only in our churches for sunday masses...Loving others unconditionally for who they are, not what we would like them to be, this was the message of Our Lord, not killing because others are different from us!

While I do agree with the Pope on matters of religious persecution and while I appreciate the fact the author has done a great job of reporting the facts around what the pope is teaching, I do wonder whether much of the "Christianophobia" would exist at all were he to denounce the rampant captialism and imperialism with which the Church has long been associated. It seems to me that some of the problems we are facing in our day are evolving from what he IS NOT saying and the stances he will NOT take.

Does Benedict really think anything he says about freedom or respect for conscience causes even the slightest ring in the ears of foreign cultures given the long and deplorable history of the Christian-Catholic Church, especially with its latest "sin" and crime of covering up the sex abuse committed by its clergy. Does Benedict, the master of muzzling theologians with whom he disagreed, think ridicule will not be hurled at him for attempting to speak for freedom. The church is managed from the Vatican. The sex scandal continues to be handled from the Vatican. It's all top-down, no bottom-up--except in the cases of clerical perverts. The church is suffocating under the last absolute monarchy in the world. The way John Paul responded to the sex scandal made him as guilty as the worst predator among his clergy. Raising him to the altar will not clean him. And so far, Benedict is nothing but more talk, ignoring and hiding the facts. The evidence is against them. Face the evidence. Until that is done, the "aggiornamento" and the airing of the musty church by Good Pope John's Vatican Council will continue to be stunted and meaningless.

What "Christianophobia"? It is hatred for Christians, pure and simple. Use the right language, and use it right.

As usual Allen ends with an extreme punch line. The Vatican and the Holy See is always willing to collaborate. He seems to be saying the Holy See won't collaborate if governments don't do what the Pope wants. He also fails to mention that there really is not a government in the world whose leader speaks out on a consistent basis about the decline and in many cases the disintegration of this very basic freedom. Sarkozy the other day did say the other day that there is a "cleansing" in the Middle East of Christians. He is completely correct. But this kind of observation needs to come from the UN and heads of government. Benedict is really the only leader underscoring what is a very real, escalation of Christianophobia throughout the world and amongst the intellectual elite and the ruling elite of the West, Europe especially. This theme has really become a major theme of this pontificate because religious freedom is such a foundational freedom--it's often called the "first freedom" for very good reason. I would strongly suggest that Allen educate himself concerning the escalation of violence against Christians in Asia, the Middle East and Europe--start with the countries of concern in the US state department report on religious freedom which just came out month ago. The Pope is on to something here which is very foundational to the perpetuation of civil society.

Clearly the Pope has a valid point here, most especially when the anti-Christianity turns to violence in churches even. Look at Iraq in particular & now Egypt with the Coptic Christians. Both Iraq & Egypt have a significant minority of Christians. In Egypt it is 10%; not sure about the Iraq percentage. Lebanon used to be about 50% Christian but after years of sectarian strife, the percentage is probably much less. Also, they say that there are few Christians left in Bethlehem.

Of course the Christians with money are the first ones to leave the Middle East with its strife for the West. The less affluent ones are the ones left behind. This is also true in South Africa with its white population.

The bottom line is that religious freedom is meaningless unless it is across the board. In the West there is hypocrisy when outrage is expressed at the desecration of Jewish & Muslim houses of worship anywhere but silence when Christians in the Mideast are subject to violence & second class citizenship.

Of course Christian hands are not completely clean either. One only has to look at places like Bosnia where Christians have attacked Muslims but Muslims have attacked Christians as well. Each group will claim that they were attacked first & are only retaliating. But this type of mentality leads to a never ending cycle of hatred & violence.

Having contributed to the present crisis, Ratzinger the follwoing in 1970 in "Glaube und Zukunft" should take some measure of responsibility for the present crisis:

"Her [the Church’s] real crisis has hardly started. We still have to go through some great storms .... Certainly she will never again be the dominant force in society to the degree that she was until recently.”

“Let me go one step further. From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal."

"She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor."

"Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers ...."

What am I missing? The Pope wants freedom of religion but reacts negatively to crucfixes being displayed in Italy.Is he OK with displaying the Koran next to the crucifix? Or is he just for freedom of religion unless it impinges on Catholic monopoly?

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? We Catholics have so much to be ashamed for. We have a dreadful history of not only shunning those who dare to speak up; we have violated their very persons by persecution and cruelly killing them. We have not only been guilty of doing this to our own
people we have even done it to our saints. We welcome the Popes attempt
to talk to the world but in our present circumstances and divided as we are
we desperately need to be humble and to use no strident language for those with whom we differ. While I would not be ready to simply turn the other cheek I feel that we should be striving for what we all have in common and pursue peace with justice for all.
I surely wish we had more credibility as a communion than we now have.
Peace on earth to all men of goodwill!
TomC.

Global peace today is threatened by many opposing world views frequently based on differing religious belief systems. In reality this is a contradiction in terms since our common Creator certainly does not have any need to be defended. God’s honour is not at stake. The vastness of God cannot be contained in any one religion, dogma or doctrine nor does God favour one religion over another. God, who loves unconditionally, cannot withdraw his presence from those who oppose him or even deny him. This same Creator cannot be offended by blasphemous words or images, not does he call upon anyone to form armies to march on his behalf. God does not call upon anyone to become his martyr or offer sacrifices in his name. God just is . . . . . as we are simply called to be.

Well, it's difficult to be an effective leader in the 21st century. To begin with, one has to accept the present as it is
and lead accordingly. And frankly, that is a big challenge.
The Pope spends a lot of time putting forward saints of the 13th and 14th century. He vigorously defends ideas of the 11th century ( mandatory celibacy) and pre-Reformation Europe (the Pope exercises authority over the various governments). Those expectations just do not fly anymore.
The laity no longer accepts the clergy as all wise. Nor do many accept that the Church has authority over one's life and one's family. The Church now must build trust and rely on persuasion and respect and inclusion of the laity. That transition appears to be difficult for Rome. Rome has few modes of punishment anymore:shame is no big deal, nor is excommunication.
The laity wants to be inspired by Jesus Christ, not subject to strategies designed to restore, maintain and grow power for the Vatican and its various arms.
Women have seen what the clergy"s attitudes toward women (the inquisition of the American nuns and the disrespectful manner in which it is carried out) really is.
In sum: the Church appears to use Jesus as an occasional prop when they want validity. All I hear ad nauseam at my church is abortion and thinly disguised political propaganda.
Why is the Papacy not illuminating the magnificent heritage of our faith? Respecting the skills of the laity. Respecting the problems of the laity? Collaboration?
No, the Vatican appears to be concentrating on increasing its own power. (EX: Cardinal George recently said that the clergy will no longer just preach, they will "punish".)
It's sad.
This is the 21st century. The 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th alone just don't relate all that well. I expect the Church in those times did well in those times. But this is another time.
Why bring Christianity into it. The problems the Catholic Church has are not due to the behaviors of all Christianity.
They are due to the behaviors of the Church itself.
My advice to Pope, if he asked me-which he won't - is that when one is in a hole, it is a good idea to stop digging.
That would require honest self-examination, open to the ideas of people of good will. I just do not see that.
We did that updating during Vatican II, but Vatican II is being rejected- even denigrated.
The Church is working really hard- problem is, they are running toward the wrong goal posts.

Pope Benedict XVI wants Pakistan's anti-blasphemy law repealed because it is being used as a cover to justify killing Christians. How do the Muslims respond?
Here is an example:
"The pope has given a statement today that has not only offended the 180 million Muslims in Pakistan, it has also hurt the sentiments of the entire Islamic world," said Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior leader of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam.
"This is an interference in Pakistan's internal matters. ... We respect the pope, being head of Christians and their religion, but he should also refrain from interfering in Muslims' religious affairs," he said, according to Reuters.
This sounds like Hussain Ahmed is more concerned with Muslims retaining the right to persecute and kill Christians, not protect them. Ahmed's statement that "We respect the pope...Christians and their religion" sounds very disingenuous.
I'm concerned now that more jihad killings will occur, because Muslims are offended, so innocent Christians will pay with their lives. Please pray for these martyrs.

Pope Benedict XVI has offered a forthright criticism of the fanaticism embodied in the law of blasphemy as existent in Pakistan that would condemn a Christian mother to death for entirely dubious reasons. This is a courageous act that needs to be supported as do his other cogent comments on the deeply troubling animus against Christianity that has appeared in other Muslim regions.

How come there is no mention in Allen's reportage that Benedict XVI in this same speech scored sexual and civic education as threats to religious freedom?

I am left bewildered from reading these comments in response to the Pope's action against Christians being persecuted in the world today, at this very moment. Men, women and children in many parts of the world are having their lives and families ripped apart, living in fear and watching their loved ones being tortured and killed and the vast majority of the world remains silent. These comments indicate a total self-absorption, lack of awareness, inability to show empathy, that is destructive and contrary to the message of the gospel. People, listen up, people are being killed and forced into submission because they believe in Christ. Does that not bother you? Are you not informed or take the time from your self made bubble to learn about what is currently going on in the world? Maybe your self-proclaimed sense of highest justice, putting yourselves above others and the Church will compel you to willingly put action to your words. Offer yourself as an exchange to a Christian living in Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, or Syria. As a young woman recently said, 'you sit back in your living rooms (and hiding behind your computer) and watch the events of the world while wondering when you will get to the store to look for that new TV you want to buy." How true are these words! The current reality is the plight of Christians and the suffering Church. This is not about the killing of Muslims because Muslims are NOT being persecuted or killed in any endorsed systematic manner. This is not about what happened 400 years ago and the acts of Christians and the Church at that time. We all - you, me, society, the Church, Muslims, Jews, your fathers and mothers, governments, agnostics, atheists, gays, women, children, black, white, Chinese, mothers, priests - have sins of the past. So, do you think this is now pay=back time? Again, why don't you first put yourself forward and lead humanity as the Messiah. This is not about pedophilia. Although another evil it requires the attention worthy of its own importance. Yes, it does exist in the Church. Yes, the church has handled it in an irresponsible manner, especially when held in higher moral standards, but also be real. Pedophilia is a disease prevalent in the world. Do you not hear of the network of rings of these people around the globe? It is not confined to the Catholic Church or priests. And yes, the rate of incidents in the church is lower than that of society. Government agencies with trained professionals, paid for their expertise, have also failed to implement responsive procedures in organizations and rid the world of this problem. But you are quick to point your finger and blame the church. The church, amid her own sinfulness and her own suffering, is the voice of the Holy Spirit, working through this weakness and confusion of human sin. Albeit, she continues to be the voice and thankfully, with her head remaining high. Christ, himself, was mocked, persecuted, and abandoned and since the Church is His body, we too expect no more. His whips and gnashing came from the people standing next to him, and the words to Saul, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? He didn't say, why are you persecuting the church or my followers, he said, why are you persecuting me. It is so easy and safe to find the splinters. The intelligence of today makes us all self-proclaimed experts, pondering the failures of others and making ourselves the model of humanity. History will write itself, as it has with the crimes of the past. Salvation history is in its process and our own individual salvation at the time of judgment. When we fail to put the cause of others before ourselves and sit back fearful of offending and hiding the truth, maybe - just maybe - our salvation is already determined. I will continue to trust the voice of the Church, pray for her, believe in her, work with her, proclaim with her, suffer with her and die for Christ, if that day ever comes. Peace.

What happened between then and now? Call a forensic psychiatrist quick and not one that's on the ole' boys payroll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute

Thank you to the last commenter. Sad that there was no reply.

I also can hardly bear to read these comments, which seem, like so many in NCR, to be full of hatred.

They remind me of why I have never answered any solicitation letter--they are full of the politics of disaffection.

Christ is not even mentioned. Apparently, He is not the point.

Remember Christ? He would be concerned about the massacred who die for Him, not the bitter rants of unhappy people living in the most affluent civilization in history and sadly, enmeshed in its mores.

As for the bitterness of so many of your readers: try reading Solzhenitsyn, whom. like Milosz, actually led a life where good and evil came into full relief: “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

A very powerful image at the top of this article. American Pulitzer winning writer Chris Hedges who can be found on the site Truthdig makes the point that the Vatican maintains it's 'hold' on power through the use of powerful images and spectacle. I concur. Below is an image I discovered recently on the web and I'd like the Vatican to provide 'a' narrative or perhaps if they're having a particularly good day they could tell us the 'truth'! Just in time for the spectacle of JPII's beatification. What a crock. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians crushed, Jewish children gassed, starved, used for 'human experiments' and some nun experiences an idiosyncratic remission of Parkinsonian tremors and voila: 'santo subito'. I am nothing but I hold Ratzinger and his circus responsible before God for their atrocities. The lies and deception. The bull**** stops here 'Benny'. Oh, and I forgot, sieg heil!
Scroll half way down the page:
http://devapriyaji.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=134804&p=3&topicID=3...