[BlueDragon]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2961979/posts?q=1&;page=104#104

I did check the link you gave. The information;

"The deaths of children in Gaza during the conflict between Israel and Hamas in recent days dramatically reproduce the topicality 'of the biblical episode of the massacre of the innocents"

From the source for Ravasi's broader intended meaning [above supplied link], the source for it having been run through google translate from Italian to English is found;

So, just as an example, the relationship between faith and politics is taken in his two respects: “Sometimes, in the course of history, the powerful of this world attracts to itself the kingdom of God, but just then it is in danger: they want to connect their power with the power of Jesus, and because of that deformed his kingdom, threaten him. Or it is subject to the persistent persecution by rulers who do not tolerate any kingdom and want to remove the king without power, whose mysterious power, however, they fear." 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, but at the same time the resurrection of Jesus strengthens us in the hope of real comfort."

Seen as such (from it's wider context), it's not exactly equating Israeli Jews alone (and we who support them?), today, as an Herod archetype, but is seen in my own eyes, more in regards to how we on earth resist Christ, more generally, as the results of such grasps for "power" play out in the world today.

Extending the historical context of "power" which Ravasi mentions Ratzinger speaking towards, it is not "the Israeli's" who are the sole "bad king" when there are the baby kings of Gaza (Hamas), the Islamic wanna-be kings of Iran, and Morsi of Egypt who has just recently declared his own edicts & proclamation to be incontrovertible ---thus making and declaring himself to be, by default, de facto king of Egypt.

Now I realize that the Catholics I am here hoping to in some way defend did not put it in the words I myself have, in the above paragraphs. Yet I do think they would very much allow their 'thought' or idea to be thus fairly extended --- IF they were not so worried that doing so in other than most diplomatic terms wouldn't just feed the fire. We saw what happened when Benedict XVI spoke esoterically, including a quote from Emperor Manuel II Paleologos

”show me just what Mohammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Muzzie heads exploded (of course!) and some people diED because of it. A real touchy bunch, them Jihadi's...any excuse, and they'll show us just how peaceful Islam can be, if they have to kill somebody to prove it! With such as that in mind, Ratzinger minds his manners, and attempts to have himself better understood by bringing the force of his own scholarship to bear.

Further, the remarks [being discussed] themselves were made (we must assume) with the Cardinal having himself been familiar with Ratzinger's work(s), being as those remarks were made in regards to an introduction of sorts towards this latest book, so themselves were in context of the themes spoken of therein.

In fact, nobody wants to even admit the Cardinal said a thing about anything.

See the above link, and consider my own understandings (if my writing be not so dense as to be indecipherable, hoo-boy!) for better understanding of what he most likely actually meant, rather than how the hit-piece applied them out-of-context, thus distorting them?

The Cardinal’s words should be condemned. You’re not going to do it. That much is obvious.

I cannot in good conscience go along with how Giulio Meotti employed certain "cherry-picked" comments in new context of his own, linking separate things/statements (most, again, completely out of their primary context).

If Rachel is again weeping for innocent children slain in symbolic "Ramallah", it IS due much to power struggles. Which power struggles may not be of such ferocity if they were to be tempered by acknowledgement & acceptance of "the historical Jesus", of that time & place when He walked the earth, and what they mean by that "historical setting", with all of those inherent meanings (as discussed in the latest Ratzinger tome, no doubt) whom Ratzinger, and Ravasi in reference to, can be seen to speak about. Those whom disagree with "Jesus" being a tonic, for whichever reason, could still do well to consider more fully where these particular Christians today, (who's statements have been combined in the article, for effect) may otherwise, more overall be "coming from".

Speaking of which, we can see that the Vicar General of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, corrected himself in this article dated Oct. 16 Bishop Shomali clarifies negative statements about Israeli education

On page 3 there is a link to pdf file; Examination of Israeli textbooks in elementary schools of the State educational system.
In the dealing with social & moral responsibility towards others, with the examiners putting it as "not limited to the people of Israel" referenced is the book of Jonah, from which they derive example. Taking some liberty here I will bring some text from Jonah; the last verse, 4:11

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Admittedly, one big problem with the above as possibly applied to Gaza, though it does reveal a portion of the Lord's true mind towards sinful peoples (which is where the Catholics in question are coming from in regards to "slaughter of innocents" I gather...) is if there has been a prophet sent to them, or not.

What many otherwise get strong impression towards, is the shelf-life of "moderate" Muslims in Gaza, is either rather limited, and if not that, then quite precarious in it's continued existence. Overall the people there were given a choice of vote between Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority (Arafat's corrupt crew). Who would a "moderate" vote for there? He might be better off just keeping his mouth SHUT and his head down.
We do not know for a certainty how many there in Gaza are sick of the whole Hamas-hate, evil song & dance, but not all of them were recently out in the streets dancing that phony victory jig. Now to how many true prophets sent to them, they may have previously slain, I have no idea. Only the Lord knows precisely that. Weeping and wailing, I'm otherwise thinking, will undoubtedly come again to Gaza, in a very real way...

Please bear in mind all of this is not coming from some FRoman Catholic knee-jerk defender, for I much (and frequently) contend against our FRoman friends over matters of most generally, longstanding disagreement. Some of these same I contend with go so far as to imply myself being guilty of some of the worst heresies, and even that one, "unforgivable" blasphemy. Yet here I am, standing with them in this regard. I do not do so hastily, or carelessly.

At risk of over-doing things (but we are on the religion forum, after all, hey!)

Zechariah 12:3
And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 51:1Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness,
Who seek the Lord:
Look to the rock from which you were hewn
And to the [a]quarry from which you were dug.
2 “Look to Abraham your father
And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain;
When he was but one I called him,
Then I blessed him and multiplied him.
” 3 Indeed, the Lord will comfort Zion;
He will comfort all her waste places.
And her wilderness He will make like Eden,
And her desert like the garden of the Lord;
Joy and gladness will be found in her,
Thanksgiving and sound of a melody.

1 Peter

6 Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame.

7 For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner;

8 and, A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

1 Corinthians 1:20-23 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.
22 Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;
24 but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[RFEngineer]

“Seen as such (from it’s wider context), it’s not exactly equating Israeli Jews alone (and we who support them?), today, as an Herod archetype, but is seen in my own eyes, more in regards to how we on earth resist Christ, more generally, as the results of such grasps for “power” play out in the world today.”

‘Not Exact’ does not mean “false”, and that seems to be the debating strategy of those defending the Cardinal - if he didn’t literally say something, the article is false and outrageous. It may be slanted, but it is not false nor is outrage over the wording completely outrageous. There is apparently a larger body of quotation from the good Cardinal that day that will not be acknowledged.

If the Cardinal did not mean to imply what his outrageous statement implies, then it’s worthy of clarification by the Vatican. The argument that “he wasn’t on the clock” rings hollow.

The sure way to avoid debates like this is for people like the good Cardinal to focus on the souls and not the geopolitics. If he really doesn’t think Israeli children have souls, and that Israeli’s aren’t “baby killers” now would be a good time to point that out, in the name of compassion, and to preserve the credibility of the Catholic faith in the region. If the good Cardinal feels the need to condemn someone, pick the savages that deliberately place children in harms way - there is the apt comparison to Herod’s atrocity.

Thank you for your thoughtful and lengthy reply.