The Vatican on Gaza: Israel is a Baby-Killer”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162368#.UK1RQ4arqSo ^ | 11/21/2012 | Giulio Meotti

[Lera]

Not a word was heard from the Vatican all the years Sderot babies were in mortal danger. They began noticing the violence last week.


Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people: “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.


The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus.

[Natural Law]

"Severely editing, here's a key phrase"

You do realize that Google Translate does not provide a literal translation. It merely translates on a word for word basis ignoring any nuance, cognates and literal intent. Unless you are fluent in Italian you should wait for the official translation before commenting in English on what the Cardinal said and meant.

[Natural Law]

"No comment by Ravasi on the Israeli babies dying because they were purposely targeted by Hamas."

The Cardinal did not mention that there are nearly 20,000 legal abortions in Israel every year either. At nearly 10% of all Israeli pregnancies it is pretty clear that Israel kills more if its own innocents than Hamas does. Where is your outrage over those babies?

Peace be with you.

[BlueDragon]

"official translation"? What official translation? Will the quotation Lera brought rough translation for, be specifically re-translated?

Of that precisely occurring, there can be serious and reasonable doubt.

Those doubts may possibly not be honestly and fairly extended towards what later could be officially said, which should be taken into consideration I'll grant, but as for now, those uncomfortable for seeing the statements as they are seen now would be better off not trying to browbeat others into silence.

[stfassisi]

“”The Cardinal did not mention that there are nearly 20,000 legal abortions in Israel every year either. At nearly 10% of all Israeli pregnancies it is pretty clear that Israel kills more if its own innocents than Hamas does. Where is your outrage over those babies?””

There should be outrage over it but those who think Israel can do no wrong will ignore this just like nationalist Americans ignore abortion in the US

Israel also persecutes Palestinian Christians that is also ignored
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2012/05/05/israeli-persecution-forces-christians-to

[Lera]

The Cardinal did not mention that there are nearly 20,000 legal abortions in Israel every year either. At nearly 10% of all Israeli pregnancies it is pretty clear that Israel kills more if its own innocents than Hamas does. Where is your outrage over those babies? Peace be with you.

Nah he should not point fingers at Israel for that when so many Catholics do the same .

The Catholic Abortion Paradox Why are Catholic women in the U.S. more likely to have an abortion than their Protestant counterparts? http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2001/01/The-Catholic-Abortion-Paradox.aspx
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions (full study*). The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.

[Natural Law]

"Will the quotation Lera brought rough translation for, be specifically re-translated?"

They are always translated into a number of languages including English. If you want to be fair and accurate you would wait for that before forming an opinion. However, that will not permit you to manipulate the Cardinal's words to be whatever you want them to be. You do have a choice. I know what an honest man would do.

[stfassisi]

Nah he should not point fingers at Israel for that when so many Catholics do the same

A Catholic who has an abortion is automatically excommunicated "Latae Sententiae"

A contrite confession of their sin can allow them to enter back in union with the Church if the denounce abortion for the rest of their lives

[stfassisi]

Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

[BlueDragon]

However, that will not permit you to manipulate the Cardinal's words to be whatever you want them to be.

I have made extensive comments on this thread, first stating the article was distortion, then in #212, defending the Cardinal to an extent, and in #262 defending Bishop Shomali. If there is some problem with not waiting for additional Vatican sanctioned pronouncement, how can opinion be formed by even YOURSELF?

I've not "manipulated" the Cardinal's words, as much as have commented upon them, and others made in the related context.

You do have a choice. I know what an honest man would do.

Oh, puleez! I am an honest man, standing right in front of you. Don't hint around that I'm twisting his own words (precisely doing THAT) if it's my other comments concerning the entire affair that are too much to handle.

[marshmallow]

No comment by Ravasi on the Israeli babies dying because they were purposely targeted by Hamas . No sympathy for the Jews in this comment ? Plenty of sympathy for the children of those who purposefully target civilians . Coupled with comparing children of Gaza (who were not even being targeted unlike children of Israel) to Herod killing children in Bethlehem trying to kill Jesus .... uh yeah the gist of what he said and didn't say can certainly be taken that Israel targets and kills babies .

Only if one has an agenda. A balanced, reasonable person would see his statement in exactly the way he intended it and the context in which it was made.

The headline posted with this article is a bare-faced lie and journalism of the worst sort. It is deceitful in both its form and content. It is deceitful in its form because it implies some sort of official statement on the the Gaza crisis was made by Ravasi and the Vatican. There was no such statement. Ravasi gave a long discourse on the Pope's new book, "The Infancy Narratives" which deals with the early life of Jesus. This naturally included the story of the Holy Innocents. There was no discussion of the Gaza conflict. Period. There was no discussion of war. Period. Ravasi was addressing the issue of the sorrow of mothers who lose children and mentioned Gaza as a modern example. The issue was a mother's sorrow, not the attribution of blame for the war or a statement on who's suffering more.

This one aside was then seized on by Meiotti and made into a headline. Lousy, sleazy journalism. An expression of concern for mothers was twisted into a political hit piece.

The headline is also dishonest in its content. Meiotti puts words into the mouth of a cardinal, to whit "Israel is a baby-killer". Words which were never uttered and never intended. That's a complete disgrace but not unexpected for a plagiarist. Quite in keeping with Meiotti's style of journalism, though. He writes almost exclusively about Israel in nothing less than glowing terms in all circumstances and situations to the point that has to wonder about who pays him. Anything which can be even remotely construed in a negative light regarding the Pope and Catholicism is seized upon.

In post #81 above, I posted several examples of his delightful garbage. In this article for instance, he rants and raves because the Pope had the temerity to enjoy some Beethoven played by a Jewish composer, Daniel Barenboim. Since Barenboim has been critical of Israel in the past and the Pope entertained him, the Pope is therefore tarred and slimed and we get this headline "The Cruel Israeli Maestro Welcomed in the Vatican". Then there's this; "Did the Pope Help the Jews?". No prizes for guessing what that article contains.

Then there's this garbage which you posted. Do we see a pattern yet? I doubt it.

The liar is Meiotti not the Church.

Gaza kills Catholics all the time ...

No Gaza doesn't kill Catholics "all the time". I know of no cases of Catholics being killed recently in Gaza. You might be thinking of Iraq or Syria but what the heck, they're all Arabs, right? In the former case it's actually .....uh.....the USA which has played a huge part in the catastrophe of the killing of Christians. Tell the truth. You hooted and cheered when Dubya said he was going to take out Saddam. Be honest.

As for Syria, we're doing our best to get the Islamic rebels into power there, too. They're "killing Catholics" but it doesn't seem to worry this country.

Israel targets those who kill the Catholics but Israel is the mean old bully.

Who called Israel a bully? Apart from you, I mean.

In case you haven't noticed there are almost no non muslims left in Gaza now and Jordan is about to be taken over by the muslim brotherhood so it won't be long before they start killing their catholics too (yet Catholics live in peace in Israel without anyone trying to kill them )

You mean like Iraq and Syria and Egypt? Ooops......we won't go there!

When it happens I am going to call you a hypocrite if I see you post about it too. (oh and Egypt is about to get a lot bloodier for Catholics too since all the worlds support for Gaza this week just helped Morsi consolidate his powers - there is a new Pharaoh in Egypt that hates Catholics and people like the Cardinal helped put him there )

Oh really?

That demands a little explanation. Tell us exactly how Cardinal Ravasi helped get the fundamentalists into power in Egypt? We're all ears.....

I know the US State Department was a big cheerleader of the "Arab Spring" but I didn't know the Vatican was behind it. Ditto for Libya. We gave Gaddafi the heave-ho and they showed their gratitude by killing our ambassador.

Ironically, the one man who truly understood what might happen in the Middle East if we stuck our noses in there, was Pope John Paul II. He told us to stay out of Iraq and on this forum at least he was portrayed as a Saddam sympathizer and a protector of dictators. Several thousand lost American lives later, we now know differently, don't we?

Your analysis is as clueless as I've ever seen and that's saying something. It does, however, help to explain why you'd post this piece of dross.

[BlueDragon]

I'm in agreement with you here (on what you say in this post I'm responding to) generally (in the top half, before the more personal conversation) particularly to what can be reasonably gleaned from wider context, as to intended meanings which can be plainly enough seen.
Yet there is a small problem. At some point or another, as mentioned in an additional link to a Yahoo article bearing an ASCA stamp, which Lera previously has provided,
in that article we do see direct mention of Gaza, and the weeping over innocents; [in part]

".... Children die in Gaza and the cries of the mothers' continual cry ... You see, the story is not 'finished', in that historical context.''

note that it claimed to be quoting Ravasi.

You yourself make admission of something alone those lines, right after denying it, by limiting it to "official" release, seeming to wish to have it both ways(?)

There was no discussion of the Gaza conflict. Period. There was no discussion of war. Period. Ravasi was addressing the issue of the sorrow of mothers who lose children and mentioned Gaza as a modern example.

Please, the "there was no discussion of the Gaza conflict. Period" followed by "mentioned Gaza as a modern example" seems to be where many think Ravasi did indeed link Herod, and Rachel weeping in Ramallah, as found in (the official article)

Or, here is the application of the tragedy of the children killed by Herod on which rests the maternal lamentation of Rachel Bible: "In our current historical epoch is the cry of mothers towards God..."

which I agree helps give context, to help understand meanings, and does certainly not add up to the justifying the horrible headline.

For those not seeing the Cardinal's statements in full at the "official" source, and even if they do seeing also other quotes attributed, such as the Italy/ASCA sourced Yahoo article, it is not fully unreasonable for them to believe the Cardinal said "Gaza" thus ensuing misunderstandings do not necessarily equate to all the ill-will attributed to those whom have raised objections. Partially for that reason raise my own objections to such as the "no mention of Gaza" type of thing, upon which the later linkages employed by Meotti appears to much depend.

That Meotti leaps to remembrance of such other "things", arguably falsely implicating Ravasi along the way, as he put it,

However, Ravasi's theme – the Jews as Herod, who killed all the innocent babies because his heart was set on killing Jesus – was much beloved by Medieval organizers of pogroms.

is quite unfortunate, at best, yet partially true at the same time (as many well formed lies frequently are) for many Jews throughout history, and even to this present day have heard & had the ignorant slur "christ killer!" hurled at them.

It's like Winston Churchill was attributed to having said;

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

Please be patient, so that I may assist in honestly unraveling this slander.

[boatbums]

I know the US State Department was a big cheerleader of the "Arab Spring" but I didn't know the Vatican was behind it.

The Vatican was a cheerleader of the "Arab Spring". From Pope says yes to Arab spring:

Speaking to journalists on the plane taking him to Beirut this morning, Benedict XVI said that the Arab spring was "a positive thing" as long as it is open to "tolerance of the other," whereas, "Fundamentalism is always a falsification of religion". The Church and other religions must purify themselves from this temptation. Peace in Syria requires an end to arms imports.

Speaking perhaps for the first time on this issue, Benedict XVI said, "In itself, the Arab spring is a positive thing: a desire for greater democracy, more liberty, more cooperation and a new Arab identity. This cry for liberty, which comes from a more culturally educated and professional young people, who want greater participation in political and social life, is positive progress, which has been hailed by Christians as well. Bearing in mind the history of revolutions, we naturally know that this vital and positive cry for freedom risks forgetting one aspect-a fundamental dimension for freedom-, which is tolerance of the other. The fact is that human freedom is always a shared freedom, which can only grow through sharing, solidarity and living together with certain rules." Hence, "it's important to see the positive elements in these movements and, do all that is possible to ensure that freedom is correctly conceived and corresponds to a greater dialogue rather than the dominion of one over the other.

As to the claim that Christians are not being persecuted and killed in Gaza, that is also not true. From http://voices.yahoo.com/christians-gaza-fear-their-lives-as-muslims-403365.html:

After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was "desecrated," Mussalem told the AP.

"Nothing happens by mistake these days," he said.

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

I'm not all that interested in prolonging this thread, the course it took was utterly expected and the usual respondents to these things made their appearances. I don't think that the author of the article has any more of an "agenda" than some here who write almost exclusively about Roman Catholicism in nothing less than glowing terms in all circumstances and situations to the point that has to wonder about who pays him. We see this reality whenever any thread either starts out with or ventures into criticism of Roman Catholicism.

Insulting people because you dislike the content of their posts shows as weakness for your own argument as well as a common school yard bullying tactic. Don't believe it will accomplish what you might hope it will. If anything, it sullies the perception of your own online character.

[marshmallow]

The Vatican was a cheerleader of the "Arab Spring".

No it wasn't. The most accurate description of the Pope's position based on the interview on the plane to Lebanon, of which you have posted excerpts is that of a qualified support. A support for greater democracy given the conditions mentioned. That does not justify the term "cheerleader". The Pope raised a number of reservations concerning fundamentalism and religious rights. The Vatican never at any stage urged Arab leaders to step down, as this country did. It never supported the sending of US warships to the coast of Libya to facilitate the fall of Gaddafi. The US was certainly a cheerleader. And still is. It's still working to get Assad out of Syria.

As to the claim that Christians are not being persecuted and killed in Gaza, that is also not true.

I never made that statement. I was responding to the statement that "Catholics are being killed all the time in Gaza". That is false. The number of Christians in Gaza is miniscule and the number of Catholics still less. There simply aren't enough for them to be killed "all the time". There is no ongoing massacre of Christians in Gaza. Their life is difficult as it is in most countries in the Middle East but I know of no deaths in the recent past.

As if that has anything to do with Ravasi's words and the isssue raised. What sort of logic is this? Catholics are being killed in Gaza "all the time"..... the Israelis are actually helping Catholics by killing Palestinians... therefore Ravasi had no business mentioning the pain of mothers, including Palestinian mothers, who lose their children....therefore the Vatican must be supporting Hamas....therefore the headline at the top of this story is correct...

Would that be an accurate summary of both of your positions?

I'm not all that interested in prolonging this thread, the course it took was utterly expected and the usual respondents to these things made their appearances. I don't think that the author of the article has any more of an "agenda" than some here who write almost exclusively about Roman Catholicism in nothing less than glowing terms in all circumstances and situations to the point that has to wonder about who pays him. We see this reality whenever any thread either starts out with or ventures into criticism of Roman Catholicism.

The strength of the Catholic apologetic upsets some. It's often unanticipated and usually unwelcome.

Insulting people because you dislike the content of their posts shows as weakness for your own argument as well as a common school yard bullying tactic. Don't believe it will accomplish what you might hope it will. If anything, it sullies the perception of your own online character.

I don't have a fan club and I don't plan on starting one. I long ago ceased worrying about popularity. I'm Catholic and I defend the Catholic Church from lies. Attack it and there will be a response. Count on it.

[Natural Law]

"I don't think that the author of the article has any more of an "agenda" than some here..."

It only takes a few minutes of critical reading and research of his other works to see exactly what the author’s agenda is, and it sure isn't pro-Christian.

Everyone who chooses to participate in the Religion Forum has an agenda and it is easy to see what the agenda is of those who embrace the age old principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when they climb into bed with Giulio Meotti and Hillel Fendel.

Why else would some seek out Catholic topic threads and attempt to use it, like some kind of St. Groundhog’s Day experience, to re-rationalize and re-justify their decision to leave the Church? If, as they believe Jesus is OK with it, why care about convincing those of us who have held fast about their superiority?

Why would some instantly choose to believe and defend the worst about the Church based upon the a fabricated slur by Arutz Sheva and yet spend hours every week over the course of years denying and arguing what the actual Catholic dogma, doctrine and history is with actual Catholics, both clergy and Master Catechists alike? Why do some present themselves as knowing everything there is to know about Catholicism while reciting only the lies that can be found on anti-Catholic websites?

Why would some continue to spout lies besmirching the Church and deny it is anti-Catholic? Why would some search the internet for hours looking for a single corroborating anti-Catholic snippet or example of a fallen Catholic while ignoring the preponderance of the evidence of the good done by the Church and its clergy? Why can some NEVER find anything good to say about the Church?

The decent thing would be to admit the haste and error in attacking Cardinal Ravasi, but I have not come to expect much decency in this forum. Like Marshmallow, I too have an agenda, but I am not deceptive or in denial as to what it is. I am here to defend the truth.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Cronos much Cronos - I know I can always count on you to know the real score

[BlueDragon]

"...denying and arguing what the actual Catholic dogma, doctrine and history is with actual Catholics, both clergy and Master Catechists alike? "

Because the history of how some of the dogma arose, isn't exactly as is advertised? That much has been well enough proven.

Just last week one of your number tried to lead me down a primrose path (with tons of loaded questions) on the way to "Purgatory".

I didn't much care for a more than FIRST two centuries of "church" history being skipped over, covered by a tombstone, and a dream. Some of us are here for the same reasons you claim is your own.

To defend the truth. >