Violence the Central Doctrine of Pauline Christianity
Using the terms "jihad" and "holy war", the Pope said: “violence was incompatible with the nature of God", in the speech delivered at Bavaria on 14th September, 2006. How does his view reconcile with the central Christian doctrine of crucifixion, which is based on gruesome violence?
The doctrine claims that Jesus, the only ‘begotten son’ of God was tortured to death in order to redeem the sins of mankind. Commonsense tells us that God has sufficient powers to save his son or anyone from such torment. But he deliberately did not, otherwise there would have no crucifixion. Therefore, the violence inflicted on Jesus was part of the divine scheme, intrinsically linking violence to the central doctrine of Pauline Christianity.
If God permitted such ghastly violence on his Own Son, then violence could not have been contrary to his nature as suggested by the Pope. It seems that the Pope has overlooked his central religious doctrine from the New Testament that is based on bloodshed. Furthermore, the Old Testament has ample examples of indiscriminate violence, with explicit reference to killing everyone including women and children. “At that time we captured all his towns, and each town we utterly destroyed men, women and children. We left no single survivor." (Deuteronomy 2:31-34). For this reason, the 2nd century what was to become Catholicism, which condemns him as a 'heretic'.
Everyone is asking why did the Pope turn a blind eye to the violence perpetrated by the Christians right under his nose? Like the Catholic Tony Blair, he claims that he had divine guidance/inspiration to invade and murder Iraqis. Yet the ‘infallible’ Pope did not have the will and the moral courage to actively restrain and oppose the fallible Tony Blair from murdering innocent people in distant lands, after lecturing about how he deplores violence. Likewise, George Bush, also a Christian, claims to have a 'hotline' to God, who apparently ordered Bush to murder Iraqis, Afghanis and anyone else who opposes ‘freedom’ – that is ‘freedom’ of America of course!
Now, how does crucifixion work in terms of guidance for its followers? Because, the notion of torturing and killing an innocent man (Jesus), or a half-god (Christ), or what ever his nature was, for the crimes of others is diametrically opposed to the natural concept of justice, which dictates that we only punish the guilty party? Pope referred to reason, logic but his fundamental doctrine of crucifixion is irrational.
It could be argued that crucifixion is an example of some kind of human sacrifice that is seen in some of the ancient religions and it is alien to monotheism. In the context of the current political situation, the event could also be viewed as a "suicide operation”, where Jesus willingly sacrifices himself to clean the sins of mankind!
The furore was primarily caused by citing the derogatory remarks about Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus who was debating a Persian intellectual. The emperor said: "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". We do not know who the Persian is, or how he responded. Apparently his response is not recorded in that detail. So why did the Pope felt the need to cite a bigoted remark from a source that is incomplete, therefore biased? Does this conform to reason and logic which he refers to in his speech?
The Pope used the derogatory and bigoted remarks of Emperor Manuel to make the case that spreading faith by the sword is wrong. Implying that only Islam endorsed forced conversion and only the Muslims have done this in the past - neither is true. Islam forbids forced conversion and the Muslims have never practiced this in the past. This type of propaganda sounds like the words of a Medieval Pope who waged the bloody crusades and kept Europe in the dark for centuries.
I hope the followers of the Pope will have courage to remind him that it is the Catholic Church (not the Muslims) who has practiced forced conversion for centuries. The obvious example is the brutal Spanish inquisition, when the Jews and the Muslims were indiscriminately slaughtered or expelled or forced to convert to Catholicism, with the direct approval of the Vatican. In Latin America, from the time of the barbaric Conquistadores, forced conversion to Catholicism has been used with mass murder and genocide. A less known example is the forced mass conversion of German, Slavish, Nordic and Polish tribes (barbarian in the Roman Catholic Church jargon)!
In an attempt to backtrack, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of the State of Vatican, said that the academic speech was meant as "a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come". In that case why did the Pope not lead by examples, by self-criticising Christianity's violent past and present before commenting on the other faiths? During the Bosnian war when the Christian Serbs were raping and pillaging the Bosnians for simply being Muslims (nominal non-practising Muslims, that is), the Vatican and the Pope was hypocritically silent. Was that because this sort of violence reminded Pope Benedict of the Medieval Crusades which he secretly desires for?
There are ample other examples of violence emanating from the Christians, and here are some prominent ones: the medieval bloody crusades, persecution of the Jews for centuries, slaughter of million in Latin America, enslaving and colonisation of Africa, brutal Spanish inquisition, fire-bombing of Dresden, fire-bombing of Tokyo, carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Lebanese Christian’s massacre of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila, Vietnam, the killing of the Algerians by the French. Yet, the Pope has the audacity to lecture the Muslims or anyone else about violence.
It is well-known that the Vatican collaborated with the Nazis. Adolf Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic, he was raised as a Catholic, and later as head of Germany he continued to affirm his Christian faith. Talking about the Nazis, the Pope in his earlier years served the Nazi regime. The official line now is: he was forced to join the Hitler Youth at the age of 14, as was required of young Germans of the time, but he was not an enthusiastic member
However, we will never know how enthusiastic the Pope was as the Nazis lost the war – if they had won, we would have seen a different Pope Benedict altogether. The inclination towards the Nazis, the absence of a non-European (especially non-White) Pope, the statements of the Pope, and his behavior in entertaining bigots like the Oriana Fallaci, points to the racist nature of the Catholic Church. No wonder Christianity has been Latinised (Europeanised) over the centuries, thus distancing it from its Hebrew roots. He is keen to maintain a racially pure Christian Europe, hence he told the Turks to seek its partnership with the Islamic world and not Europe. No doubt the Vatican will remain white, and its leadership will also remain White European for the foreseeable future.
Eventually, a cosmetic apology was issued from the Vatican. The secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said in a statement on Saturday that the Pope "had absolutely no intention" of presenting Emperor Manuel's opinions on Islam as his own. In that case why did he cite the Emperor’s derogatory statement? The Pope uses his statement to corroborate his own opinion. For him to say now that he is “sorry” if any offense was caused, and have the chutzpah to suggest that Muslims have misunderstood him, is hardly being honest.
If the ‘apology’ was genuine it would presents another dilemma, as words of the Pope are infallible according to the Vatican and the millions of its followers. So how can the infallible Pope even admit to making a mistake and hence apologise, especially to those infidels who are outside the fold of Christianity?
Pope Benedict XVI was himself a Nazi
Pope Benedict XVI delivered his speech in Regensburg. Located at that city was the Messerschmidt plant, and one of the most notorious concentration camps. For the first 18 years of his life the current Pope both lived with approval in the Nazi ethos, and was himself a Nazi. In 1927 he was born into the enthusiastic ferment that gave birth to the Nazi movement and saw them empowered in the early '30s. At the age of 14 he joined the Hitler Youth. At that age and in that place, one may assume enthusiasm. After two years of good behaviour, at the age of 16, he was drafted into the German Army. He worked in an anti-aircraft brigade. In 1945 he was taken prisoner by US forces and sent to a prisoner-of-war camp. He was then 18.
The Jesuits say that if they can be given a child up to the age of six, they will have him for all his life. Following this Catholic doctrine, we may assume that the Nazis have the Pope for all his life. He had been brought up under the Hakenkreuz (Swastika), and as a young man he straightened its edges and took up the Catholic Cross. Flushed with the vision of a masterful governing elite bent on world conquest, in a heady mixture of ruthless power and scientific application that was the Nazi Weltanschauung, the young Ratzinger entered the great historical tradition of a truly 'Catholic' Church bent on world control. He entered the Church knowing its historical identity. He knew that the power of the Church over the centuries was sustained not just by torture and genocide, but by the institutionalisation of a system, a closely documented and detailed system, of torture and execution by burning. The Inquisition had been the admired model of Himmler and his S.S.. Added to this was the psychological intensity and cruelty of a celibate priesthood which over these centuries had created witch-hunts across Europe, and the torture and burning of women in an un-counted holocaust of genocide.
In place of the Nazi doctrine of imposing power on the lesser races came the Christian Crusades set up to impose the impossible doctrines of Sacramental Christianity on the Islamic civilisation.
Unfortunately, the world in which poor little Ratzinger had been brought up was to change utterly. The seminarist found he had entered a totally different world. The Catholic Church had previously been forced, in order to sustain its absolute power, to submit heretics to torture and burning. The trouble was that the simple application of reason made it impossible for people to believe that the central rite of the Church was true. The so-called Sacrament. The Sacrament was based on the prior existence of an initiate elite, called Bishops. On being 'consecrated' by the Pope, who in turn claimed to be the active representative of the disciple Saint Paul, these Bishops could transform bread and wine into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. (We ask Allah's forgiveness at having to record this fantasy.)
Sex crimes and the Pope
BBC, 1 October,2006-10-02
Panorama examined a document which allegedly encourages secrecy in dealing with cases of priests abusing children.
It says this was enforced by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope.
The document called Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 and apparently instructed bishops how to handle claims of child sex abuse.
Programme makers asked Father Tom Doyle, a former church lawyer who was sacked from the Vatican for criticising its handling of child abuse, to interpret the document.
He said it was an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child abuse, which stressed the Vatican's control and made no mention of the victims.
Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.
It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.
Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.
Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe.
It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex."
It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.
Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.
Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City.
One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States.
During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican.
The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him.
After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest.
Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old.
Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial.
Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese.
Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report.
It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children."
The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy.
In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed.
The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film.