Tag Archives: Regensburg

Pope Benedict was Right at Regensberg

Excerpts from Acton Blog

He [Pope Benedict XVI] called quietly for a return to the supremacy of reason in religious discourse, and he politely asked Muslims to abjure violence.

The smug western secular media, busy with their attacks on one of their favorite targets, failed to quote the rest of the paragraph. But there can be found the thesis not only of Pope Benedict’s lecture, but of Christianity’s real response to both the uncontrolled violence of Islamism and to our own intellectually impoverished pleasure-obsessed libertinism: reason and faith, “fides et ratio” and their harmonious collaboration to create a moral and just civil order.

Read it all at Acton Blog

 

Islam: When Bergoglio attacked Ratzinger

From Rorate Caeli

“Islam: When Bergoglio attacked Ratzinger”

Regensburg, 2006
When a Islamophile Bergoglio attacked Ratzinger
by Fausto Carioti
August 22, 2014
A story which happened in Buenos Aires eight years ago helps us to understand the position adopted by Pope Francis regarding the ISIS, the “Islamic State” which has embarked on a merciless hunt against Christians. Avoiding, as always, naming Islam and fanatic Muslims, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, invited “stopping the unjust aggressors” without “any bombing” or “starting a war”. A choice which does not seem to leave escape for the victims and for this judged sterile by many: believers (including Antonio Socci from these columns) and non-believers (the case of Massimo Cacciari).
In reality this intervention is perfectly in line with the ideas that Bergoglio expressed many years ago: always characterized by appeasement, and accommodating to those that the Pope, even recently, called “our Muslim brothers”. The most sensational episode goes back in fact to 2006, immediately after the discourse held by Joseph Ratzinger in the aula magna at Regensburg on September 12. On that occasion the German Pope had cited the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II: “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.” Words, explained Ratzinger, that he used “to underline the essential relationship between faith and reason”, and which did not imply an identical condemnation of Islam by the Pope. However this academic and theological subtlety was not understood by the Islamic world, which then, en-bloc attacked Ratzinger, who was also threatened with death.
The pontiff was hit, however, chiefly by accusations launched from some exponents in the Church. Among these, the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The future Pope did not speak in person. It was Father Guillermo Marcó, spokesman for Bergoglio. Speaking to the Argentine edition of the weekly “Newsweek”, he used extremely harsh tones: saying that Ratzinger’s declarations had been “unfortunate”. And more: “I do not identify with the Pope’s words. I would have never used that citation.” Concluding with: “If the Pope does not recognize the values of Islam and it is left like that, in twenty seconds we will have destroyed everything that has been built over the last twenty years.”
It was Marcó who spoke, but everyone knew that those sentences corresponded to the thought of his superior. So, while the Pope was defending his reasons before the Islamic world, one of the most influential voices in the Latin-American Church, in fact, sided with the Muslims. Words “unheard of” those of Bergoglio’s spokesman, so much so, that inside the Leonine Walls “for a while it was all the talk,” a Monsignor said to Clarín, one of the main daily newspapers in Argentina. Confronted with the scandal, Marcò sustained that he had said those things not as press agent for Bergoglio, but in quality as President of the Institute for Interreligious Dialogue, another office covered by him. A justification hard to believe, so much so that Rome put pressures on the Archbishop in order that he distance himself from him. “How is it possible that your spokesman made such declarations and Bergoglio did not feel bound to contradict him and remove him immediately?” a Vatican source asked Clarin. The priest, nevertheless, remained in his place. He was substituted some months* later, when a Minister of Internal Affairs, evidently considered more important than Benedict XVI, asked for his head for other reasons.
In the meantime, the Vatican had taken away one of Bergoglio’s men, the Jesuit Joaquín Piña, from the position of Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú: Piña had given declarations similar to Marcó’s to the press. The English daily The Telegraph, reconstructing the incident, recounts that Rome warned Bergoglio that he would have also been removed if he had continued to delegitimize Ratzinger. And Bergoglio reacted by cancelling the trip that would have taken him to the Synod convoked by the Pope. But the story didn’t end there. On February 22, 2011, the Apostolic Nuncio in Argentina, Archbishop Adriano Bernardini, precisely in Buenos Aires delivered a fiery sermon against Ratzinger’s enemies. “The Holy Father,” he said, “is the victim of a persecution, he has been abandoned by the opponents of the Truth, but above all by certain priests and religious, not only bishops.” Many of whom he was referring to were present there, in the church, right in front of him. Bernardini, today Nuncio in Italy, is not included in Pope Bergoglio’s “book of friends”.

Antonio Socci comments:

From this news we deduce two important conclusions:
– Through his spokesman, Cardinal Bergoglio attacked Benedict XVI for his masterly discourse in Regensburg, and this makes sense of his present reticence about the Islamic butchers in Iraq. Cardinal Bergoglio attacked the Pope who came under attack from everyone as well as being under threat by the Islamic terrorists, even though – being a Cardinal – he had the particular duty to defend the Holy Father.
– I want to speak to all those who are launching anathemas at me today saying,  “the Pope can’t be criticized.” What did Bergoglio do? He did it – even as a Cardinal, while the Pope was under threat.
* Note: actually, he was replaced days later, but all Argentine periodicals at the time attributed this to Vatican pressure.

“Mohammed brought … things only evil and inhuman”

Manuel Paleologus: “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.”

Iraq shows how true this is. Islam is the model for the religion of the Antichrist.

Pope Benedict XVI said this at Regensberg:

‘I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “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.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]’

FRANCIS’ RUN-IN WITH BENEDICT XVI OVER THE PROPHET MOHAMMED

From the Telegraph UK

Pope Francis’ run-in with Benedict XVI over the Prophet Mohammed

Pope Francis came close to losing his position within the Catholic Church after he criticised his predecessor seven years ago.

Pope Francis' run-in with Benedict XVI over the Prophet Mohammed

Pope Benedict XVI meets the archbishop of Buenos Aires Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio at the Vatican, 13 January 2007 Photo: AFP/GETTY