Posted on 04/18/2008 6:40:10 AM PDT by 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.
I guess that I’m not as bothered by Maher than some are. He can be a very funny guy when he’s not talking politics. There are some of his bits up on YouTube, that are very funny. It’s worth checking them out.
I know that Maher is a bed-wetting liberal and profoundly wrong on all issues when it comes to politics. Maher is another Richard Belzer who used to be a funny guy, but he too has lost touch with reality and his craft has suffered greatly.
Maher is generally obnoxious, which used to be part of his schtick, has morphed into part of his personality. He has a smarmy condescending tone, and truely thinks that he’s smarter than the rest of the world. Part of that is his Ivy League (Cornell) education...as an English Major. I too am a graduate of Cornell (MS Applied Physics). But there is a world of difference in the two fields of study.
Faith and works.
That is not what the notes say.
Two different aspects to Justification, one seen by God (faith without deeds) and one seen by man (faith producing deeds)
That is according to a Roman Catholic bible.
So, two of your Bibles are teach anti-Catholic doctrines.
It's a start! 8~)
They do not. You behave as though repeating it makes it true. It does not.
It’s a falsehood.
They do not. You behave as though repeating it makes it true. It does not.
The NAB has a study note that states very clearly that Justification has two aspects to it, one faith towards God, without deeds,(Paul) and another, deeds with faith seen by men.(James)
The New Jerusalem Bible gives the translation in Lk.1:28, 'full of favor' not 'full of grace'.
You have criticized that translation in Protestant Bibles as being deliberately false.
One Bible gives credence to salvation by faith alone and the second undermines the RCC view of Mary's Immaculate Conception.
Stop denying the truth (but you won't)
Petronski
[Mary was said to have ‘found favor with God’.]
That is a common protestant mistranslation. Quite intentional, I think.
If it is intentional ‘Protestant’ mistranslation the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible must be a Protestant Bible in disguise!
Luke 1: 28 He went in and said to her, ‘Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour! The Lord is with you.’
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=42
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)
That has not happened.
It will never happen.
Even if I stopped denying your misinterpretations, they would still be false.
Even if I stopped denying your misinterpretations, they would still be false.
I am not misinterpreting anything since I am not interpreting anything, all I am doing is citing what two Roman Catholic Bibles (nothing objectionable in them) have in them.
In fact, the NAB has ' full of favor' as well.
So, two of the major Roman Catholic translations have 'full of favor' for Lk.1:28-which you called a Protestant translation.
As for the third major Catholic translation, the Douay-Rheims, it at least gets 1Cor.1:18 correct by making salvation an event (saved) and not a process,(BEING saved) yet another Protestant view.
All I did was give you the commentary notes that the Roman Catholic NAB translators had on James 2 which supported the Protestant view of Justification.
I never claimed anything regarding the RCC.
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.