"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Friday, July 29, 2005

LATEST VATICAN STATEMENT MAKES POPE BENEDICT SEEM LIKE A HYPOCRITE AND AN ANTI-SEMITE

This blog has - up until now - been a real booster of Pope Benedict; I lauded his attack on moral relativism and believed he might help prevent Europe from slipping away from its deep Judeo-Christian values (and perhaps into dhimmitude or outright Mohhamedism).

That's why I am so VERY saddened and angered by what seems to be CONFIRMATION of the Pope's anti-Semitism in a GLARING CASE OF BLATANT DOUBLE STANDARDS AND "FALSE MORAL EQUIVALENCY"/MORAL RELATIVISM - OF EXACTLY THE TYPE THAT THE POPE HAD ORIGINALLY CONDEMNED AND SIGNALLED HE WOULD FIGHT.

ACCORDING TO THE BBC:
The Vatican has rejected Israel's criticism that Pope Benedict XVI failed to condemn Palestinian militant attacks against Israel in his recent remarks. A Vatican statement said it could not condemn every Palestinian strike because Israel's own response had sometimes violated international law. Israel had complained that the Pope on Sunday left the country off a list of those recently hit by terror attacks. The Pope deplored the attacks in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Britain. ... The latest statement from the Vatican said: "It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation." ... It said this was mainly because "the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israel reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law". "It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (Palestinian attacks) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence". The statement added that "the Holy See cannot take lessons or instructions from any other authority on the tone and content of its statements". Earlier this week, it criticised the Pope for failing to mention a 12 July suicide bombing in Netanya that killed five Israelis. The foreign ministry [of Israel] said the pontiff's speech would be interpreted as "granting legitimacy to... terrorist attacks against Jews".
If you agree with the Pope -- who now it seems, ACCORDING TO THIS LATEST VATICAN EXPLANATION), DELIBERATELY LEFT ISRAEL OFF THE LIST -- then you must ALSO condemn the USA for counter-attacking against terror --- OR YOU TOO ARE AN ANTI-SEMITE, A HYPOCRITE AND A MORAL RELATIVIST! A double-standard applied to Israel (and Israel alone) is anti-Semitic.

This latest statement by the Vatican - which reveals that the Pope DELIBERATELY OMITTED TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL, and is therefore ANTI-SEMITIC - is also a COMPLETE REVERSAL of the Pope's prior stance AGAINST MORAL RELATIVISM - as stance he made the centerpiece of his first speech! (And of the previous Vatican explanation of his comments!) WHY? Because, the Pope's statement FALSELY EQUATES RETALIATION AGAINST TERROR WITH TERROR! This false equivalency is founded on moral relativism: it essentially argues that one man's instigator is another man's retaliator, that targeted retaliation/retribution against terror is equivalent to terror - and THAT is an IMMORAL denial of reality!

It is more fitting for scum like KEN LIVINGSTONE - who recently said that Palestinian terror against Israel WAS justifiable - than the Pope! Jack Straw CONDEMNED those remarks by Livingstone; Catholics who are not anti-Semitic moral relativists or hypocrites MUST condemn the Vatican's latest explanation of the Pope's anti-Semitic remarks just as clearly as Straw condemned Livingstone's remarks!

SHAME ON THE VATICAN! This is sad and a dark day for the Church. It bodes VERY badly for the Church. Pope Benedict can hardly be the type of staunch leader that the Church and Europe needs if he has one set of standards for Christians (and Muslims) and another set for Jews. This HYPOCRISY will cripple any and all efforts to re-awaken moral clarity in Europe. Pope JPII was morally consistent and clear. Pope Benedict seems now to be neither. If he keeps this up, he will be a DISASTER for the Church, and for Europe.

I pray to God that he repents.

[More criticism of other recent anti-Semitic attacks against Israel's right to self-defense (specifically Israel's use of targeted assassinations, and the ANTI-TERROR BARRIER and why the anti-Israel "appeal to international law" is ENTIRELY BOGUS) HERE and HERE.]

11 comments:

Karlo said...

Why is every failure to do what the pro-Isreali lobby wants "anti-semitism"? The constant cry of racism poisons reasonable debate on the Isreali-Palestinian issue.

reliapundit said...

Karlo,

thanks for the question.

(1) anti-Semitism is any instant in which Jews/Israelis are held to unique set of standards and/or expectations by non-Jews.

Anyone -- INCLUDING THE POPE -- who states that the USA and other nations are permitted to retaliate against terrorism, BUT that Israel is NOT, is by definition anti-Semitic.

There is no such thing -- at this point -- as a "reasonbable debate" on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Israel has accepted a two-state solution. The problem is merely that the Arabs do not accept Israel and/or they are UNWILLING to fight the terrorists who want to destroy Israel (as they are REQUIRED to do by THE ROADMAP FOR PEACE).

The Arab "militants" in Gaza and the west bank must disarm, just as the IRA promised to do (and no finally seem willing to do). The Palestinian Authority MUST take actions to disarm them if they refuse. NEITHER HAS HAPPENED.

And there are continuous attacks by these "militants" against Israelis, and yet when Israelis take retaliatory actions to punish and deter attacks, they are criticized.

Livingstone and the Pope are ANTI-Semitic.

It is this ANTI-SEMITISM - and not Israel's defensive actions - which prolongs the conflict.

If the whole world unambiguously backed Israel - and literally and figuratiovely pummelled the Palistinian "militants"
into surrender (as we did to the jihadoterrorists in Fallujah), then a settlement would be MORE likely.

The Palestinians - and other Arabs - should be AT LEAST as brave as the Iraqis and Afghanis who ARE fighting back against the jihadoterrorists.

I salute the brave Iraqis and the brave Afghanis who fight the jihadoterrorists.

I condemn all people who say Israel cannot do to the jihadoterrorists what the Iraqis are doing or what the Afghanis are doing or what the Inidans are doing or what the British and Americans and Filipinos and Thias and everyone else is doing!

If you belive that Israel is NOT entitled to do what the Iraqis who are fighting the "insurgency" are doing then you are an ANTI-SEMITE.

Am I clear? Do you get it!?

Pastorius said...

Reliapundit,
Good post, my friend. I also did a post on this subject at CUANAS.

Although I agree with your logic here, I refrained from calling Pope Benedict an anti-Semite because of the position papers he wrote in the lead up to the Vatican II. He was one of the main creators of the move away from Replacement Theology in modern Christianity.

His position on the subject of Jews and salvation is more enlightened than almost any other Christians stated position.

So, I find it very odd that all of the sudden he would come out as an anti-Semite. I have to wonder if there's something more to this. Could it be that someone else wrote a Press Release for him? Pathetic, if so.

Could it be that he bought the Jenin Myth, and wasn't informed enough to have found out about the resulting Human Rights Watch report? Still pathetic, if true. I knew from the very beginning that the Jenin situation was not a massacre. I didn't need Human Rights Watch to tell me what was going on.

Still, even a Pope gets his news from the media, and I don't think Israel is his main concern.

I know I sound like I'm making excuses for him, and I guess I am grasping at straws, but this is just too hard for me to believe.

By the way, I am not Catholic, and I am not Jewish. So, I don't have a horse in either race. Just thought I'd throw that in there for any of your trolls.

:)

Keep up the great work.

reliapundit said...

pastorius - you are right about benedict pre-papacy. he was greast for judaism.

which is why this statement disappointed me and angers me so.

maybe he's under the control of the clerical homo/pedofile mafiosi?

or maybe the malachy poredictions were right?

all i do know is that we can only judge each other by our deeds.

this deed by the Vatican - is BAD.
it is hypocritical and morally relativist and anti-Semitic.

and i feel that i MUST criticize it for what is IS.

regardless of any excuse/expalnation/rationalization.

regardlesdss that it's the Pope.

there have been evil popes before...

Pastorius said...

What can I say? You're right about that.

Pastorius

Bairuide said...

And his predecessor condemned the invasion of Iraq! Anyone for taking over the Vatican, hardly a democratic state afterall ?

reliapundit said...

infallibility of the Pope is a 19th Century custom.

it could be changed.

the celibate priesthood is a 12th Century custom - and it can be changed, too.

a married priesthood would diminish the power of the current priest ruling class, and open up the seminaries to married men - and this might (a) increase the numbers of priests and (b) diminish the power of homosexual priests and pedophile priests.

it now seems inescapable to me that if these two changes are NOT made, that the Roman Catholic Church is THROUGH! KAPUT.

These two changes would strengthen the Church.

These two changes would NOT be "revolutionary", though, in any historical sense since it would RESTORE the Church - specifically the priesthood - to a prior position.

Pope Benedict's recent anti-Semitic position and his lack of oversight during the recent homosexual/pedophile scandal in the USA PROVES he is FALLIBLE, and that the priesthood needs a MAJOR OVERALL.

It also bodes very badly - it is VERY UNLIKELY that Benedict will make these changes. He appointed a priest from san francisco to oversee priests, and he has chastised Israel for doing what gentiles do without chastisement.
That is bad. Very bad. It goes against ALL the things he stood for before he was made Pope. SO... either he was a liar, or he has changed, or he is not really "in command."

ANYHOW... SO.... MAYBE MALACHY WAS RIGHT WHEN HE PREDICTED MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO THAT BENEDICT WOULD BE THE NAME OF THE LAST POPE!He was right about EVERY pope before Benedict... and Benedict is the last one he named... there is no Pope after Benedict on Malachy's list...

just a thought...

Pastorius said...

Who is Malachy, and where do I read about him?

Jews rule the world said...

We should kill all Catholics, a payback for the Hellish Inquisition.

reliapundit said...

pastorius:

google malachy pope predictions.

and also: google it at my blog.

Joseph Smith, Jr. said...

Interesting blog. Enjoyed reading it.

Sincerely,

Joseph Smith Jr.
Latter Day Saints
http://www.whatismormonism.com