Posted on 05/13/2002 10:12:58 AM PDT by gubamyster
Raymond J. de Souza National Post
ROME - Christians have forgotten how to take offence.
For several weeks now, the European political class has worked itself into a lather about the spectre of anti-Muslim persecution, fanned by the anti-immigration policies of the recently trounced Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and the recently assassinated Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands. All this while armed terrorists were occupying Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.
And so continues the surreal post-Sept. 11 world, in which anti-Islamic rhetoric brings forth an overwhelming political response, while outraged reaction to the violation of Christian faith, represented by the occupation of the Church of the Nativity, is almost completely absent.
It needs to be said. The occupation of the Church of the Nativity by armed Palestinian terrorists was a gravely anti-Christian act. Much has been made of how the basilica was filthy but not seriously damaged. To speak only of what happens to a church physically is to miss the point. One of Christianity's holiest shrines was profaned by armed terrorists. It is blasphemy to use the house of God as a military refuge. For more than a month, the faithful were denied access to the basilica to pray while the gunmen used its status as a house of prayer as a tactical advantage.
That the key men inside were not refugees but terrorists was confirmed by the reluctance of any country to grant them exile. Italy grudgingly agreed to take one or two, but reports in the Italian press yesterday indicate they will be kept confined, perhaps on an island somewhere. Too dangerous for the Italian mainland, apparently, but Europeans appeared to be fine with the fact such men would have the run of the Church of the Nativity.
Of course, all the usual caveats apply. Islam is not to be equated with violence. "Palestinian" and "terrorist" are not synonyms. Israel is not without sins.
And yes, the Israeli army did lay siege to the Church of the Nativity. But the "occupation-siege," as the Vatican always referred to it, was first an occupation. The Israelis did not lay siege before the gunmen stormed in, and they left when the gunmen were escorted out. No occupation, no siege. It should be noted that in the early days of the "occupation-siege" Israeli President Moshe Katsav promised Pope John Paul II that Israel would not attack the church, a promise that was kept. Bethlehem is a Palestinian town, but to date there has been no statement from the Palestinian authorities condemning the use of the church as an armed refuge.
Christian pusillanimity reached absurd lows last Saturday night when Italian mayors, gathered in Rome, took to the Colosseum to sing John Lennon's Imagine. Italy, which is very proud of itself for being selected as the likely site of the next international peace conference on the Middle East, wanted to show its commitment to peace. The Christian martyrs of the Colosseum would have wept to see it.
The enemies of Christianity are justified in their laughter. The birthplace of Jesus Christ is overrun by terrorists, and in response, dozens of at least nominally Catholic politicians sing pop music's most nihilistic anthem --imagine there's no Heaven ... no countries ... no religion. Imagine no Christian resistance. It isn't hard to do.
The Vatican itself was better, though its diplomats hedged their words, as one would do when your friars and nuns are in possible mortal danger from armed terrorists. The word of men who do not respect sacred places counts for little when it comes to the safety of the consecrated persons who administer them.
Yesterday, Pope John Paul said that he felt "great relief that the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem has been returned to God and to the faithful." The implication was clear: the occupation had taken the basilica away from those to whom it belongs -- God and those who would pray to Him there. The Pope sent a special envoy to celebrate Mass at the shrine, which was officially described as an act of "thanksgiving, atonement and reconciliation." The key word there is "atonement" -- an acknowledgment that grave sins against the holiness of the basilica were committed and that God's forgiveness needs to be asked.
The enormity of what happened needs to be underscored. Speaking of the "long and anguished history of the Church" in the Holy Land, the Franciscan priest responsible for the shrines, Father Giovanni Battistelli, called the "occupation-siege of the Shrine of the Nativity a chapter utterly without precedent." Never before in the centuries of wars and sackings that have drenched the Holy Land in blood has the basilica of the Nativity been occupied. And for good reason -- potential occupiers knew that a ferocious response would certainly have followed. Today, the only penalty seems to be having to listen to John Lennon's puerile philosophy set to music.
The Church of the Nativity was desecrated. The Christian response was a disgrace.
Raymond J. de Souza is Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Register. He is to be ordained a Catholic priest in July.
Then prove it by going away from this thread and giving up its jurisdictions for others to enjoy. I'm still waiting. If you claim such worship, apply it.
What translation of the New Testament are you using? And what is the exact reference in the gospel of John for this quote?
He is also present in the Eucharist in the tabernacle in the Church:
John 6: 52-59Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [not interpreting this metaphorically]
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" [Why would this be a "hard saying" if Jesus was speaking metaphorically?]
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?..." [Not, "Oh sorry! I meant that metaphorically!] He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. [Does Jesus say, "Hey wait, you misunderstood! I was speaking metaphorically!" ] "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." [Peter answers with a statement of trust and belief. Note that he doesn't say, "Oh yeah, you were speaking metaphorically."]
Maybe not, after this piece. He just offended peace-loving Muslims.
The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." (Numbers 21:8)
And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18)
If you take these verses together you can see that God does not object to "graven images" per se but He does object to the worship of graven images.
Catholics do not worship graven images any more than Protestants worship paintings of Jesus or photographs of family members.
_________________________________________
Try reading the Bible, you may find it to be very refeshing.
See #44
Perhaps that's because revenge is a dish best served cold.
=========
At the risk of being the skunk at the orphan's picnic allow me to says this:
The money changers, merchants, etc. in the Temple courtyard were there for the sake of those who came to worship at the Temple. The money changers would --like modern international bankers-- change the money of the pilgram/traveler to the local, useable currency; not only for non-religious uses (food,drink, lodging) but for donation(s) to the Temple itself.
The men selling animals were also there for the benefit of the pilgram, who would buy the animal-- chiefly birds, in some cases sheep, and every great once and awhile cattle would find a buyer (but not too often as cattle was extremely expensive. Like donating a brand new Lexus to your church or temple) to offer for sacrific in/to the Temple.
I am not saying that Christ had no reason to be angry. I only bring this up to show that the courtyard of the Temple was not some sort of jumbo flea market.
Also intresting to note is that fact that the Roman SPs (for want of a better term) were not called in. Giving thought that actions of Christ "upset" only a few of the Temple merchants. A symbolic gesture, as it were...and there is nothing wrong with that. After all, one doesn't have to drink the whole glass to tell if the milk's gone sour.
First of all, offering the other cheek is all well and good when it pertains to ourselves, as individuals. I would argue, however, that there is a problem when we as Christians turn the other cheek when it is other people who are being harmed or when it is the sacred things of God that are under attack. The occupation of the Church of the Nativity was clearly a case of the latter. Particular places and churches are not holy in themselves, but I would argue that God does sanctify such places by His grace and that we should treat them as belonging to God.
I have my own little theory as to why there is not more outrage. It goes back to the liberalism that has invaded the Catholic Church. Liberalism has very effectively changed the de facto practices of Church life. Art is different, music is different, architecture is different... even the liturgy is different from the way it has been for many years now. It has all been secularized in a sense.
The outward expressions of faith play a very strong role on the way the faith captures our hearts. When we find ourselves expressing our faith in the forms in which we worship, that faith becomes real. It is practical. It captures our hearts to a great degree.
But, when worship and religious practice is secularized, what do we do then? What do we do when it does not reflect our faith? In such a case, we become disconnected from what we believe. I believe this is the case in the modern Catholic Church.
Do not misunderstand me- I am not advocating for Catholics to become Traditionalist schismatics. However, I do think that we must have a movement towards orthodox expression to compliment and to teach our orthodox faith, lest our hearts move even further from our souls.
(Note: I am not saying that this problem applies to all Christians. As a Catholic, I simply speak from the condition I know within my own Church.)
Just because the Turks used the Parthenon for a gunpowder storehouse and it blew up and devastated that marvelous antiquity doesn't mean that Islam has no respect for other religions.
Its not like they go around doing that...oops except maybe the Buddahs in Afghanistan.
Surely there is some evidence of their respect for other belief systems. How about India? Oh well, wrong again.
Yes it was an outrage for these terrorist to over run and invade the Church of the Nativity and use it for a urinal. But here in the last days, dark is called light, good is called evil, and it would have been Israel that would take the heat from evil in high places for a situation they did not create if Christians had thrown the kind of fit that Muslims would have had it been a Mosque that was invaded.
We love God's people more than the Church of the Nativity, even though it is well loved also, it is repairable.
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.