Pope Francis "you Cannot Insult Religion"

[Ash Wednesday]

[ST BERNARD]

Related question, what is your opinion on Just War? Are you a pacifist?

 

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what the Pope said as they are really two different things. He didn't say if someone hits you first or kills your mother or puts your family in a concentration camp, he said if someone insults your mother or your faith ... slightly different scenario. 'Sticks and stones' vs bullets and torture.

 

And besides, this opens a whole new discussion about martyred Christians who died rather than fight back vs those who fought in 'just wars'. It might be beyond the scope of this particular issue.

 

But you weren't asking me, so I'll let beatitude respond to your question.

[PhuturePriest]

I love Papa Frank! He is pretty rad!

 

 

I still have the sticker I received for free with a picture of him and the words "This Pope gives me Hope" on my refrigerator at home. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what the Pope said as they are really two different things. He didn't say if someone hits you first or kills your mother or puts your family in a concentration camp, he said if someone insults your mother or your faith ... slightly different scenario. 'Sticks and stones' vs bullets and torture.

 

And besides, this opens a whole new discussion about martyred Christians who died rather than fight back vs those who fought in 'just wars'. It might be beyond the scope of this particular issue.

 

But you weren't asking me, so I'll let beatitude respond to your question.

 

Good news: The Pope has retracted his statement:

 

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2015/01/16/pope-retracts-punch-in-the-face-remark-says-he-would-kick-them-in-nuts/

Edited January 16, 2015 by PhuturePriest

[Era Might]

Whatchu know about that sweet chin music.

 

[superblue]

I think people are very quick to criticise Pope Francis. He said you shouldnt disrespect religions. He didn't say you should make it illegal to disrespect religions.

 

It's like when a father teaches his son to hold the door open for a lady, and then gets barraged with criticisms of being sexist and accused of forcing his son to be a servant. It's actually kinda ridiculous.

 

 

Same when the Pope called for a and I am paraphrasing " redistribution of wealth " to poorer countries,  then every conservative radio host, started screaming Marxism, Socialism ////

 

 

Or the " who am I to judge "

 

it is interesting how society is quick to edit what the Pope has to say, not just this Pope pick anyone,  they hear what they want, and edit what is said to suit their purpose, instead of having an open heart, and placing trust where it is due which is to the Papacy , Given to humanity by Christ to Peter,

 

or I guess one could say it is a lack of faith....

 

I am learning to read less an less of the criticisms on the Papacy in general.

[Guest]

Radical Islam needs insulted. No?

[Nihil Obstat]

Radical Islam needs insulted. No?

Welp, I will not answer this question as is, but I will note something interesting. The Christian response to Islam is inherently "insulting", at least from their perspective. we can believe nothing other than that Mohammed was either evil or tragically deluded - and of course that is for God to know - and that he undoubtedly led many souls away from Christ. Who knows how many souls in torment he could be responsible for.

And to Islam, to say that is appalling blasphemy. If I lived in, for instance, Saudi Arabia, and I thank God I do not, I would very possibly be killed.

Even to assert that Islam is false, and that salvation comes through the Catholic Church and Her alone, would be blasphemy. Even the Trinity itself, Islam considers blasphemous.

So, how are we defining an "insult"? If we can equate insults with Islamic blasphemy, then I would say yes, as Catholics it is necessary to "insult" Islam. On the other hand, are we going to take "insult" to mean, perhaps, something more juvenile, something ad hominem or crude or false? In that case we should not 'insult' Islam. It misses the point. And that extends to Muslims too. We should not insult Muslims, because that would be getting things backwards. We should evangelize, show them the Truth, refute their errors, show them how salvation comes through Jesus Christ and the Church. And we love them - it is because we love them that we try to lead them out of the error of their false religion. Who knows whether or not they are responsible for their errors? As usual, only God.

[4588686]

we can believe nothing other than that Mohammed was either evil or tragically deluded 

 

Or that we don't really know much about what Muhammad originally believed and that his followers constructed myths around him as the generations went on. 

 

Just like Jesus.

[BarbTherese]

 

his followers constructed myths around him as the generations went on. 

 

Just like Jesus.

  :shocking:

[Nihil Obstat]

Or that we don't really know much about what Muhammad originally believed and that his followers constructed myths around him as the generations went on. 

Ok, so we will say "ceteris paribus" to my above statement and call it good. Assuming Mohammed is who the Muslims say he is.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Or that we don't really know much about what Muhammad originally believed and that his followers constructed myths around him as the generations went on. 

 

Just like Jesus.

 

This could be said about any historical figure that has ever existed.   At what point do you draw the line?   Do you only hold this broad reservation about historical figures who's lives, messages, and teachings impact the way you live?  If not then what other non-religious figures throughout history have you questioned the authenticity of?  

[4588686]

This could be said about any historical figure that has ever existed.   At what point do you draw the line?   Do you only hold this broad reservation about historical figures who's lives, messages, and teachings impact the way you live?  If not then what other non-religious figures throughout history have you questioned the authenticity of?  

 

Not every historical figure. You wouldn't say this about Thomas Jefferson. Because the man left behind a huge amount of writings and we have lots of writings about him by people who knew him directly. Neither of these things can be said of Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha or Abraham et cetera.  

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Not every historical figure. You wouldn't say this about Thomas Jefferson. Because the man left behind a huge amount of writings and we have lots of writings about him by people who knew him directly. Neither of these things can be said of Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha or Abraham et cetera.  

 

In the NT we have the writings of the disciples of the Apostles and the Apostles themselves who knew Christ directly.  Where is the problem?  Couldn't Thomas Jefferson have been exaggerating in his writings as well as the people who knew him directly?  It seems that you would be skeptical of Christ to the point of never accepting anything written of Him, yet when someone like Thomas Jefferson is being talked about you would lap up everything presented to you.  How about another non-religious figure that has little written about him, like Alexander the Great?  Do you doubt his authenticity? 

[BarbTherese]

If one is going to debate from a secular point of view, then most all historical figures' stories can be questioned and questionable somewhere or other. 

 

Where Scripture is concerned one can do the same, except if one is coming from a supernatural point of view, i.e. Faith where reason often must be silent when The Church speaks on Faith and Morals. 

 

Where Scripture is concerned, She does so speak and assures us that all of Scripture is inspired by The Holy Spirit.  She assures us in Faith that Jesus was truly human and truly Divine at the one and the same time and the Second Person of The Blessed Trinity.   Reason can only take finite beings so far............ where the supernatural is concerned, we are speaking of The Infinite.  Only Faith can bridge the two.

[Guest]

Welp, I will not answer this question as is, but I will note something interesting. The Christian response to Islam is inherently "insulting", at least from their perspective. we can believe nothing other than that Mohammed was either evil or tragically deluded - and of course that is for God to know - and that he undoubtedly led many souls away from Christ. Who knows how many souls in torment he could be responsible for.
And to Islam, to say that is appalling blasphemy. If I lived in, for instance, Saudi Arabia, and I thank God I do not, I would very possibly be killed.
Even to assert that Islam is false, and that salvation comes through the Catholic Church and Her alone, would be blasphemy. Even the Trinity itself, Islam considers blasphemous.
So, how are we defining an "insult"? If we can equate insults with Islamic blasphemy, then I would say yes, as Catholics it is necessary to "insult" Islam. On the other hand, are we going to take "insult" to mean, perhaps, something more juvenile, something ad hominem or crude or false? In that case we should not 'insult' Islam. It misses the point. And that extends to Muslims too. We should not insult Muslims, because that would be getting things backwards. We should evangelize, show them the Truth, refute their errors, show them how salvation comes through Jesus Christ and the Church. And we love them - it is because we love them that we try to lead them out of the error of their false religion. Who knows whether or not they are responsible for their errors? As usual, only God.

Great post