Maher to Apologize for Calling Pope a 'Nazi'

CNSNews.com ^ | April 17, 2008 | Melanie Hunter-Omar

[paterfamilias]

Maher to Apologize for Calling Pope a 'Nazi' By Melanie Hunter-Omar CNSNews.com Senior Editor April 17, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Liberal talk show host Bill Maher, whose controversial comments about the pope drew fire from the Catholic community, is planning to apologize Friday night for falsely accusing Pope Benedict XVI of being a Nazi, the Catholic League announced Thursday.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue received a phone call Thursday from an HBO executive regarding comments Maher made last Friday on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Donohue said Maher "lied when he said the Pope 'used to be a Nazi.' Like all young men in Germany at the time, he was conscripted into a German Youth organization (from which he fled as soon as he could). Every responsible Jewish leader has acknowledged this reality and has never sought to brand the Pope a Nazi. That job falls to Maher."

Apparently HBO agreed with Donohue's assessment. "Apparently, now Maher does as well. Ergo, the apology," Donohue said.

So will the Catholic League accept Maher's apology?

"Assuming it comes across as genuine, the answer is yes. But I hasten to add that what we would really like to see is for Maher to stop with his hateful diatribes against the Catholic Church. So this is a start, but it hardly puts to rest our concerns," said Donohue.

"After all, there are plenty of factually accurate things Maher could say about other groups that would insult its members, but he chooses not to go there. Perhaps he can add Catholics and the Catholic Church to that protected list as well," he added.

[fortheDeclaration]

[Nothing personal about dictionary meanings-objective facts.]

Which has nothing to do with your personal interpretation of Scripture.

Exactly, objective definitions show that Paul is speaking of one type of justification, James another.

Simple truth, nothing subjective about it.

You can reject it but it nevertheless remains true because it is an objective fact.

[WileyPink]

bump

[Petronski]

Exactly, objective definitions show that Paul is speaking of one type of justification, James another.

This is your opinion.

[FourtySeven]

Christ said that any vine not producing fruit He would remove (sin unto death-1Jn.5:16), and those that are would be purged to produced more.

Emphasis added. I think you and I agree more than we disagree.

[fortheDeclaration]

[Exactly, objective definitions show that Paul is speaking of one type of justification, James another.]

This is your opinion.

No, that is the truth based on the context of the verses and the dictionary meaning of the justification.

[Petronski]

No, that is the truth based on the context of the verses and the dictionary meaning of the justification.

In your opinion.

[fortheDeclaration]

[No, that is the truth based on the context of the verses and the dictionary meaning of the justification.]

In your opinion.

No, it is the factual truth, no matter what anyone's opinon is.

[Petronski]

No, it is the factual truth, no matter what anyone's opinon is.

That too is your opinion.

[fortheDeclaration]

Actually, it is the opinion of the translators of the Roman Catholic NAB as well,

'It has been argued that the teaching here contradicts that of Paul (see especially Rom.4,5-6). The problem can only be understood if the different viewpoints of the two authors are seen. Paul argues against those who claim to participate in God's salvation because of their good deeds as well as because they have committed themselves to trust in God through Jesus Christ (Pauls concept of faith)....The author of James is well aware that proper conduct can only come about with an authentic commitment to God in faith...(n.pg.1398, New American Bible)

I await your next 'brillant' denial.

[Petronski]

Where is the link to that information?

[Petronski]

Do you imagine that these words are an endorsement of sola fide?

[fortheDeclaration]

Where is the link to that information?

Buy yourself a NAB, I did!

[fortheDeclaration]

Do you imagine that these words are an endorsement of sola fide?

What those words from a Roman Catholic Bible show is that there are two aspects to Justification, one which is spiritual, justification which makes a man pure before God, (faith without deeds) and one that is seen by men (faith producing good deeds).

So, it is not just my 'personal opinion', but the opinion of the RCC translators of the NAB that see that also.

[Petronski]

That would be an endorsement of sola fide. The USCCB is flawed and liberal, but not heretical.

[Petronski]

Buy yourself a NAB...

It's a dreadful translation. I'll pass.

[attiladhun2]

I’ve heard this jerk has to use laugh tracks and prompters.

[fortheDeclaration]

[Buy yourself a NAB...]

It's a dreadful translation. I'll pass.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC translation is a dreadful translation?

It even has a picture of a Pope on the cover!

Took about private interpretations, you even reject your own churches translations when they go against your opinions!

[fortheDeclaration]

[That would be an endorsement of sola fide. The USCCB is flawed and liberal, but not heretical.]

Whatever you thing it would be an endorsement of, the New American Bible is a Roman Catholic translation that states very clearly that Justification has two aspects to it.

It was approved by the Roman Catholic Church as having nothing offensive in it.

Stop being a heretic!

LOL!

[fortheDeclaration]

Correction: [Took about private interpretations]

That should read 'talk' not 'took'.

[Petronski]

...the New American Bible is a Roman Catholic translation that states very clearly that Justification has two aspects to it.

Faith and works.