Posted on 02/22/2005 12:46:48 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
ROME (Reuters) - Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday.
In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century.
He also reveals that he is convinced the Turkish gunman who shot him in 1981 did not act alone and suggests that the former Communist Bloc may have been behind the plot to kill him.
The 84-year-old Pontiff's book, a highly philosophical and intricate work on the nature of good and evil, is based on conversations with philosopher friends in 1993 and later with some of his aides.
In one section about the role of lawmakers, the Pope takes another swipe at gay marriages when he refers to "pressures" on the European Parliament to allow them.
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
The Pope's fifth book for mass circulation, issued by Italian publisher Rizzoli, sparked controversy in Germany and elsewhere after Jewish groups protested against leaked excerpts comparing the Holocaust to abortion.
In at least two sections of the book, the Pope talks about the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews and the wholesale slaughter of political opponents by Communist regimes after World War II.
"LEGAL EXTERMINATION"
In following paragraphs he says that legally elected parliaments in formerly totalitarian countries were today allowing what he called new forms of evil and new exterminations.
"There is still, however a legal extermination of human beings who have been conceived but not yet born," he writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.myway.com ...
Yes it is, that is if you believe that there are absolutes and in Him who created them (absolutes).
Yes. Not only this, but the Pope--John Paul II--has made a pro-abortionist bishop a cardinal as well--Karl Lehmann. Under German law no one gets an abortion without presenting a certificate indicating they have received counselling. Lehmann set up counseling centers that issued these certificates, despite Rome's objections. Yet he remained in good standing with the Pope and was awarded a red hat along with the heretic, Walter Kasper.
Here is how Catholic World Report reported the issue: "The president of the German bishops' conference, has often found himself at odds with the Vatican, particularly on the question of abortion counseling by Church-related agencies. The inclusion of his name, in the Pope's second announcement [of new “cardinals”], provided the biggest surprise of the consistory, and the cardinal-designate [Lehman] wasted no time in claiming that his elevation was a vindication of his efforts." (CWR, March 2001, p. 28).
How JPII justifies such actions is beyond me. The Pope may seem like a holy and orthodox man--but his actions belie his station. He is someone opposed to Tradition, who deliberately punishes orthodox men--yet rewards the most unorthodox of bishops. It is very baffling and difficult to justify. In a similar way, this Pope condemns gay marriage--which is all to the good. Yet he will do nothing to reverse the elevation and promotion of gays in the hierarchy by means of cronyism nor institute any reforms to reverse the lavenderization of dioceses and seminaries.
"Why would someone even want to be a priest if they deny the core of our beliefs, specifically, the Resurrection of our Risen Lord?"
Good question.
Reuters buries the lead. An attempt to murder the Pope. THE POPE!!! Maybe this is the stuff of conspiracy theories, but consider the source.
This is a falsehood, Kaspar did not say this and it was disproved on FR before. It was a phraise taken out of context in amuch larger work.
Hmm. Looks like I'm going to have some homework to do.
He most certainly said this. Here is the article by Harrison citing Kasper:
_______________________________________________________
Where, then, is Fr. Bredin's evidence that "the Scriptures offer no basis" for our thinking that the Resurrection was the cause of the tomb's emptiness? Our author goes on to quote with approval Walter Kasper, who maintains that although Mark's tomb story is older and less "legendary" than the others, "It is clear that in its present form at any rate, it is in no way a historical account." 29 If Mark's account, and therefore the more "legendary" ones as well, are "in no way" historical, that means they are substantially non-historical. Fr. Kasper's reasons for saying this appear ostensibly to be largely literary ones. As quoted by Fr. Bredin, he says that in Mark's empty tomb narrative,
"We are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening. Everything is clearly constructed to lead very skilfully to the climax of the angel's words: 'He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him' (16:6)."
For the substantial non-historicity of the "tomb stories," then, we have been offered only two pieces of "evidence," namely, the (supposed) incompatibility of the details in the respective Gospel accounts, and the alleged literary skill of Mark in presenting his account. But this is completely unconvincing. If several witnesses write an account of some dramatic event - say, a fire in a large building - some years after it took place, we will almost certainly find some discrepancies of detail - differences, for instance, as to what time it broke out, how long it took to be extinguished, how many people were seen to jump from its windows, and so on. But what serious historian would take this as evidence that the reports were "in no way historical," and that perhaps the fire never took place at all?
Likewise, the argument from literary style proves nothing at all. Even if Mark had written his account even more "skilfully" - in the form of exquisite poetic verses, let us say - that would not be an argument against its historicity. Gerard Manley Hopkins, for example, wrote a very moving poem, "The Wreck of the 'Deutschland,'" after reading in a newspaper an eyewitness account of this real-life shipwreck. He kept to the essential facts, even while expressing them in a creative and imaginative way. Any critic who argued from the mere fact of the poetic literary form adopted by Hopkins to the non-historicity of what he describes would of course be deceiving himself. Moreover, one suspects that in the case of Kasper's argument from the absence of conventional historical form to non-historical content in the Gospel "tomb stories" there is an additional fallacy - that of begging the question. What evidence does Fr. Kasper offer for his claim that the form of these stories is not in fact that of conventional historical writing or fact-reporting, but rather, that of "a narrative intended as the basis for a cultic ceremony"? 31 One would want to ask Fr. Kasper, "Supposing the women did in fact go to the tomb on the first day of the week, find it empty, and meet an angel who told them that Christ had risen from the dead; how in that case would a normal first-century historical form of reporting these extraordinary events differ significantly from the form which we in fact find in Mark's canonical account?" One suspects that no convincing answer at all would be forthcoming; certainly, Fr. Kasper himself offers none. This in turn strongly reinforces one's suspicion that Kasper's appeal to style and form is only a smokescreen: he seems to have judged the form of these stories to be non-historical simply because of their content; that is, because of what they say rather than how they say it. Thus, Fr. Kasper feels entitled to call Mark's mention of the angel a "stylistic device," not because of the way the evangelist talks about the angel, but simply because he talks about it at all. Angels as such are to be understood as a "stylistic device."
In short, we are told that the content is not historical because the form is not historical (which in itself would be a non-sequitur), only to find out that the reason for judging the form to be in fact non-historical is its (self-evidently) non-historical content - angels appearing and bodies being raised to life.
The exegetical arguments offered here for "non-historicity" are in themselves so transparently flimsy, as we have seen, that we doubt they could convince men as intelligent as Kasper and Bredin unless bolstered up by some powerful "hidden persuader," such as a philosophical world view which excludes direct or miraculous actions of God in the physical order as outside the realm of the possible or credible. But, as Pope John Paul II affirmed in a recent catechetical address, such a world view "clashes with the most elementary philosophical and theological idea of God." 32 Disbelief in miracles (in the true and proper sense of sense-perceptible events which cannot be explained by secondary, natural causes) is thus radically incompatible with Christian faith. 33 Yet this indeed seems to be very close to the world view of Fr. Kasper as recently, at least, as the mid-seventies. 34 He then wrote of the theological "task of coming to terms with the modern understanding of reality as represented primarily by the natural sciences" (as if there were only one such "modern understanding"). 35 Kasper continues:
"The premiss of the scientific approach is a wholly law-bound determination of all events. ... In scientific theory there is no room for a miracle in the sense of an event with no physical cause and therefore no definable origin."
That Fr. Kasper is confusing this particular philosophical position with real science - in the sense of certain and true knowledge which "modern" man just has to accept - becomes clear a little further on, when he tells us that any "miraculous" event
"always comes about through the action of created secondary causes. A divine intervention in the sense of a directly visible action of God is theological nonsense."
On the contrary: it is precisely this opinion of Fr. Kasper - which amongst other things would presumably rule out such "directly visible actions of God" as the raising of a dead body and a virginal conception - that seems like theological (and philosophical) nonsense. Why should the One who created the material universe from nothing find it impossible or unseemly to work further marvels?
Of course this is an excerpt only. But we've been this way before. You continually deny the obvious--even now when Kasper goes around telling Protestants and Jews there is no need for their conversion. This too goes unreproved by this Pontiff--for whom no thesis is too outrageous as long as it's novel.
Pope John Paul 2 rocks!!! Bump!
But I'm a bit confused here, even though you say that was taken out of context, the message is still there. How can those comments, even taken in context, be reconciled with Catholic belief? I'm asking in a serious manner, not advocating one side or the other, mind you. But if it is as it seems, then I'm shocked and disgusted by this.
Kasper's theology is eccentric and not really orthodox.
But the reason Kasper was "promoted" to "Unity of Christians" (or whatever) was that JPII wanted Kasper OUT of Germany before he finished leading the German Church off a cliff.
Note well: whenever Kasper flaps his yap in Rome, he is either contradicted immediately (if the remark deserves it) or is just about totally ignored by the rest of the Curia.
This was a "lateral arabesque" as described in "Up the Organization" by the ex-President of Avis.
Prattle on, schizzie. I only hope that you return to the Church in time for a happy death.
Still doesn't negate the problem of having an outright heretic in such a high position. This is what is most distressing to me. The man should be defrocked if that's his true belief. Further, if it is his belief, how can anyone in good conscience place him in a position dealing with iter-faith dialogue?
Note my comment above. Perhaps the single most significant deficiency in this Pope is his unwillingness to FIRE dumb yocks. (Were Tomas Torquemada still with us.....oremus!)
But he does know how to neutralize them. He puts 'em where they can be watched or ignored, and really doesn't let them get away with much.
Same with Lehrmann--another well-known poop.
Thanks for your insight!
I did not "refuse to look at the book" as you say. I did not have the text at hand--nor was it necessary to cite from it since his view was notorious. I doubt if I had cited directly from it myself that you would have accepted anything I quoted anyhow. It is enough that Kasper's reputation is well-known in theological circles--that he is included in a circle of doubters that included the radical Schillebeecx. Brian Harrison is himself a respected priest-theologian with no axes to grind whatsoever--and his forte has been refuting the attacks on the historicity of the Resurrection by modernists. He called Kasper for what he was--someone who denied the historical worth of the Gospels and the Resurrection accounts in particular.
You have also claimed this was a "tabloid article"--another falsehood. Harrison published his piece in a scholarly journal, Living Tradition: Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, No. 19, September 1988. Excerpts from this article also appeared in the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano on 14 December 1987. Not only this, but even now Kasper is going around spouting heterodox views about there being no need for conversions on the part of those outside the Church, a novel doctrine opposed to all previous Church teachings. Am I lying about this also? And how is it that John Paul has never corrected such statements on the part of a man he himself has placed in the highest office in the Church dealing with ecumenical affairs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.