Sunday, August 24, 2014

Leftist Ex-Mayor of Venice: "I Expect More From the Pope Than From a Renzi or Merkel"

(Rome) The Catholic journalist Antonio Socci has been harshly attacked for his criticism of Pope Francis' silence about the tragedy of the Christians in the Middle East. However, similar criticism also comes from an "unsuspected" wing, as expressed by philosopher Massimo Cacciari who was mayor from 1993-2000 and 2005-2010 of Venice. Cacciari began his career as a radical left-winger. For the daily newspaper La Repubblica, which Pope Francis prefers like no other medium,  Cacciari said:
"This is a radical change in the political theology of the Church ... but that's a neat problem ... Francis considered an intervention, where he decides to to legitimate the UN   - but that is a secularization of the Catholic idea of" just war "... The position of Francis is extremely weak. His point of view is actually one that a Renzi or a Merkel might represent. Forgive me, but from the Pope, I expect something more, that is, he should tell me that it is necessary to intervene on the basis of the absolute values he holds."

"No more silence" - Haunting Words of Saint Catherine of Siena

Antonio Socci provides affirmation  to Cacciari's statement  in the words of St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380):

Saint Catherine of Siena, with a burning faith and an open heart
"Oh,  end  the silence! Call out  with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is sick because of the silence, the bride of Christ is pale. "With these powerful words, the saint turned to  high church officials.
And what else did Antonio Socci write about in the newspaper  on 20 August  on the topic for Libero:
"Even today, one can feel the need in the Church, that women and men with burning faith and open hearts like St. Catherine, turn anxiously to the Pope (Gregory XI), who did not do what he was supposed to have done:  'In  your place I would fear that the divine judgment would come upon me.'
But in our time a strange clericalism and its flattery predominate and not the voices of the great saints or free men and women, or perhaps they are not heard.
It is very hard and very painful for a Catholic, given the tragedy of Christians and other minorities in Iraq, to understand the attitude of the Vatican by Pope Bergoglio and accept that they are hunted and killed by bloodthirsty Islamists of the Caliphate in these times.

A Week-long Illusion

In the first weeks there was a reluctance to talk about it. Even the prayer initiative of the Italian Bishops' Conference of 15 August, the pope, in open contrast to his predecessors, remained silent. Obviously, he cherishes a dislike of the Italian Church.
Then, finally, after 20 days of the massacre of men, women and children and a thousand times the pressure, especially by the bishops of that country and the Vatican diplomats, Pope Bergoglio decided to express those fateful words, even though he did it very quietly, 'It is legitimate to stop an unjust aggressor '.
What a performance ... That would have been missing, would  he have said that it is legitimate that the attacker kills innocent people, crucifies the  'enemies of Islam', buries children alive and rapes women and sold them as slaves.

The Attitude of John Paul II., And Benedict XVI.

In another tempo and energy, John Paul II called to defend the innocent. 'When I see that my neighbor is persecuted, I must defend him: This is an act of charity. That to me is humanitarian intervention.' He emphatically turned, however, in 2003 with his last strength against the non-UN-supported U.S. military intervention Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.  Similarly, Benedict XVI appealed against the. 2011,  UN-supported U.S. military intervention Opération Harmattan against Libya.
But neither John Paul II. nor Benedict XVI. are sitting on the chair of Peter. Pope Bergoglio hastened to shuffle off his words   immediately that one may legitimately 'stop the attacker, but without bombs and without going to war.'  Thus we imagine the bitter question of whether he really wants to save face or save the lives of innocents. How should a brutal gang of killers be stopped without weapons? What does  Pope Bergoglio suggest to the butcher to stop?  There will be those who will immediately say, a pope could not call for violence, even not when it comes to saving innocents. Wrong. For centuries, the Catholic doctrine teaches the right to self-defense against an unjust aggressor.
It was the theologians of the school of jurists of Salamanca, as well as the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria, precisely on that point, who established the modern basis of International Law on the basis of natural law in the early 16th century.
Pope Benedict XVI. in 2008, recalled to the United Nations: 'The principle of responsibility to protect was viewed from the ancient ius gentium  (international law) as the foundation of every action that is performed by the governing to the governed.' And pointed out that the Dominican Friar Francisco De Vitoria, is rightly regarded as a precursor of the idea of the United Nations.'
Thus John Paul turned II turned in 1995 in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae: On the other hand, "self-defense of the one for the lives of  others  responsible for the welfare of his family or the common good, is not only a right but a grave duty". 1 It unfortunately happens that the need to render the attacker harmless, sometimes brings his killing with it. In this case, the fatal outcome is put the attacker to load, which has exposed him by his act, even in the event that he was not morally responsible for lack of use of reason.' 2
What Pope Francis would have done if following in the footsteps of his predecessor, would have been a proportionate and targeted use of force to disarm the attacker and save the lives of the persecuted. But not for other interests.

Silence is a Child of Catho-progressive Ideology

Moreover, we find no single  mention by the Pope regarding the Islamist slaughter, not even once the word Islam, Islamists or Muslims. If someone had only the words of the Pope to go on,  he would not understand in the least, who is responsible for this humanitarian tragedy.
This serious reluctance is the result of Catho-progressive ideology, for dialogue with Muslims is wrongly understood and  pursued as surrender, even on a psychological level. This goes so far that there are Catho-progressive commentators who go so far as to repeat with zeal, that the butchers of the Caliph have nothing to do Islam and the  'true' Islam, since   actual Islam is something else entirely. Only: The Butcher of the Caliph forces his victims to convert to Islam if they don't want to be killed or driven away.
It is understandable and right that the church leadership does not seek conflict, controversy or even a religious war. But it is also a duty to tell the truth and to give believers a serious cultural judgment about  what is happening to Christians in the world. This is especially true given the cultural subservience of many Catholics, where some are even  seriously concerned, to keep so contemptibly, silent about 'the persecution of Christians.'  Christians are clearly the most persecuted group worldwide.

The Pope's Quiet Words   "at least" Refute the Loud Talkers

Despite all the words of the Pope on the flight back from Korea, it's a step forward, always with the hope that given the dramatic situation he will soon, as soon as possible, follow clearer and more decisive words.
The words should, meanwhile, already serve to order some of their thoughts to help. Even those who wanted to go immediately with sharp words, to  silence everyone in recent days who dared to call the papal silence by name. And those who were not embarrassed, to insinuate the same time, the demand to stop the attacker was the same as calling for a war or even a crusade.
The papal words, as quietly as they may be, at least refute those who  trumpeted the most loudly, that the silence of the Pope meant that he 'wanted to avoid even worse reactions'. Or quite shrewdly: 'If the Pope does not say anything, then it means that he is in secret '. This is much chatter, spoken by well-meaning and less well-meaning people.
In reality, we were under the illusion in the Vatican for weeks that there is a diplomatic way. However, the  Caliph just wants to conquer, massacre and forcibly convert. That's exactly what the situation as it was described by the Iraqi bishops who were perfectly familiar with the real situation for the Vatican, which did not want to hear. The bishops have indicated that the butchers do not even know what the word 'dialogue' or diplomacy mean.

An addendum

And an addendum: In his speeches during the Korean visit to Pope Francis called legitimately on the whole Church to reflect on the example of the martyrs of yesterday and today and for prayer. Quite right. The call is very weak, if he does not at the same time encourage the whole Church to rush to the aid of the victims. And it is weak without that profound cultural consciousness that Benedict XVI. knew how to give those who were willing to listen. Today, however, confusion rules.
Introduction / Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
image: Riscossa Christiana / fresco in the church of S Pietro di Carpignano Sesi (Novara)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

14 comments:

  1. Cacciari's critique seems like far too clever nit-picking. Whether or not a proposed course of action fits the abstract theology of a just war is surely a very secondary consideration to helping people who are suffering now. To do that practicalities must be considered, and no doubt the Pope like many others feels that getting the United Nations involved may be the best option. To say that this is bowing to secularisation and abandoning Catholic theology is absurdly far-fetched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's absurdly far fetched to credit this Pope with making an unequivocal condemnation of Islam in defense of Catholics who are being murdered.

      Delete
    2. Where is the evidence for this allegation?

      Delete
    3. Did you not read or comprehend the article? Pope Francis didn't get around to making a statement about this till late, and when he did, gave an ambiguous statement that ruled out the use of force.

      Delete
    4. I did read and comprehend the article.

      However , you alleged at Tancred Aug 25th at 6-01am the following :

      "I think it's absurdly far fetched to credit this Pope with making an unequivocal condemnation of Islam in defense of Catholics who are being murdered."

      The article does not credit the Pope with making any such unequivocal condemnation.
      Quite the reverse in fact.

      Delete
    5. Of course he doesn't, he's actually criticized Benedict in the past for his Regensberg speech.

      This Pope will offer no condemnations of Islam, because it's doubtful that he sees it as a false religion, based in many statements he's been making over the last year about that topic.

      I prefer to take him at his word.

      Delete
    6. But you alleged that the article credited the pope with making unequivocal condemnation of Islam.

      Diplomatically no pope can unequivocally condemn another major world religion.
      The farthest he can go is to

      a] point out the errors in any such religion.
      b] make exhortations that the religious rights of Christians
      are respected
      c] make exhortations to earthly military powers to protect the lives of christians where they are being physically persecuted.
      d] make exhortations to said militay powers to utilize restraint in the conduct of their operations

      As far as I know the current Pope has done all these things in relation to the persecution of Christians in Iraq and Syria..



      Delete
    7. I didn't allege the article did that. I was commenting to the OP by the aptly named Savanarola.

      Popes have unequivocally condemned false religions.

      Delete
    8. You initially defended my pointing out of your errors on the basis of what was allegedly written in the article.

      Now you say you were responding to the OP.

      Either way there is no reference anywhere to the pope being
      credited with making an unequivocal condemnation of Islam.

      Popes in the past condemned false religions.
      This is correct.

      Popes nowadays have decided that blanket condemnations of false religions are futile and counterproductive.

      Perhaps they are correct.

      Certainly I see no harm in seeking out what may be commonalities between different religions.

      The harm I see is in common worship by catholics with non catholics at any type of religious ceremony.

      I draw the line at that since it must needs lead to indifferentism and a diminished view by catholics of their own religion.

      Pope John Paul 2, Pope Benedict and the current Pope have in my view by participating in ecumenical services with non catholics created an intellectual climate that is relativistic
      in nature.
      Ie catholics think ah well sure our own religion is good but hey maybe we can learn something from the non catholic religion.
      The logic is that there may be deficiencies in their own religion.

      The current and previous two popes again in my view seem to have not condemned such outlooks and thereby have condoned such outlooks.

      In terms of how non catholics view catholics they think hey those catholics are not so sure of what they believe.
      Maybe their claim to being the one true religion is not so solid after all.

      This climate abounds now within many areas of the catholic church and is in my view the primary reason for the decline in priestly vocations and educational establishments.

      Delete
    9. You're wasting my time and yours.

      Delete
    10. I don't have time to argue with hostile niggling people like you.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. Alas, the Pope Francis is an islamophile who believes that a "dialogue" (blah-blah-blah etc...) is possible with Islam.
    See : http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/libero-quotidiano-when-bergoglio.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. As fellow Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam are to be considered partners with Christianity, no? Isn't this the practical message of all the "gestures" and "dialogue" that reveal the weak character of the post-V2 Church?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...