There is an interesting exchange between Fr. George Rutler and Christopher Hitchens which occurred during a Question and Answer segment on May 1st.
FATHER RUTLER: I have met saints. You cannot explain the existence of saints without God. I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa [inaudible]. You have called her a whore, a demagogue. She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me?
FATHER RUTLER: That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference.
One eyewitness stated.
“At the end of the event as he staggered, sweating and red faced, out of the room, he [Hitchens] advanced on Father Rutler in a threatening and physical manner, screaming that this beloved pastor and brilliant scholar whom he had never met was `a child molester and a lazy layabout who never did a day’s work in his life’. His behavior was so frightening that a bodyguard put himself between Hitchens and Father Rutler to protect him. Several of the event organizers then escorted Hitchens to the men’s room and when he emerged he continued his psychotic rant, repeating the same calumnious and baseless screed as before. It was then that Father Rutler, in the most charitable manner, told Hitchens [for the second time] that he will `either die a madman or a Roman Catholic’. … Unless he faces his alcoholism soon, I am betting on the ‘madman’ ending for him.” (4)
59 comments
>Mr. Piatak, when “faithful Catholics” patronize, enable and otherwise appease a “religion” that seeks to enslave them, destroy them and replace the crucified and resurrected Jesus with a false prophet, then they are enemies of Christ.
Accept the Catholic Church & Pope John Paul II in particular have NEVER done this accept in Joe’s fevered conspiracy theory. One of Joe many presupositional errors here is to assume anything having to do with Muslims or Islam must be treated as an undividable whole. He is like the Jew-Baiting conspiracy theorist who thinks Abe Foxmen & Rabbi Levine are in cohoots because they both happen to be Jews. Thus Joe can’t tell the difference between the Muslim theologian & academic who shows up for an Eccumenical Dialog (with his rather civilized view of Islam) Vs. the Suicide Bombing Jihadist.
>When such “Catholics” give open support to such men as Saddam Hussein, as Cdl. Renato Martino did, or repeat the propaganda of the infidel, as Cdl. Poul Poupard did on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, then they are enemies of Christ.
Classic Joe. Didn’t Shawn warn you about this or did you post this dreck before he spoke to you? This is a tangent that serves as a distraction, another example of trying to find everything possible to criticize or undermine the memory of the late pontiff.
It is the ONLY way Joe knows how to argue. Then he acts surpised when he is not recieved well by faithful Catholics.
>When such “Catholics” refuse to acknowledge the civilization threat that Islam poses, then they are enemies of Christ.
Again the erroneous warrent here is Islam is treated as an undifferenciated whole. The liberal Muslim acidemic who cites the passage from the Koran that states “There shall be no compultion in Religions” is treated by Joe as the eqivilant of the terrorist who cites passages about killing the infidel. The REAL threat to civilization is ANY group of individuals who seek to coherce people into accepting their beliefs & commit extreme acts of violence to bring it about. As per usual it is the sole providence of the Goverment, the temperal gardians of civilization, to recognise the threat & deal with it. It’s not the Church. She is not a political entity. She is above such prostitution as politics or ideally should be.
>When a Vicar of Christ spends more time criticizing a war over which he has no control — a war that deposed a sadistic tyrant, btw — than confronting a sex-abuse crisis that was the greatest threat to the Church’s moral credibility since the Reformation, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.
I won’t address the tangent of Sex abuse(you would do well Joe to ACTUALLY follow Shawn’s advice instead of snowing him by saying you will follow his advice & then writing this dreck). Joe’s mojo is to gravitate toward extremist mischaracterizations. The Pope’s criticism over the war is quite restrained & sober even if you don’t agree with it. Joe can’t tell the difference between the Pope & Cindy Shehan & wishes to make an emotional argument. BTW for the record I agreed at the time we needed to remove Saddam & disagreed with the Pope’s ctiticism. But it’s a strech to claim the Pope opposition to the War as patronizing, enabling and otherwise appeasing a religion that seeks to enslave them. This is just Pro-war version of Cindy Shehanistic retoric. As a Pro-war Catholic on principle I disavow it.
>When such a vicar refuses to discipline malfeasant bishops who cast their faith aside for political power and prestige, then he becomes an enemy of Christ.
Joe is a very ambigous & disorder critic. I believe here he wants the Pope to monitor the Political oppinions of the Cardinals & rebuke those who don’t conform to Joe’s personal political orthodoxy or they are “enemies of Christ”. Yeh sure pal. I can’t make this stuff up. Joe you are the Cindy Shehan of the Pro-war Right. Your views are extemist & a poor substitute for authentic, balanced & sober criticism. You are a liability to the Pro-War argument. Not an asset.
>When such a vicar fails to denounce effectively the Palestinian and Muslim “culture of death” that encourages (indeed, praises and rewards) the piecemeal genocide known as suicide bombing, then he is an enemy of Christ.
Here Joe tries to save himself with his use of the adjective “effectively”. He knows it is silly to claim the Pope has never condemned suicide bombing. I speculate “effective” is defined by him as either meaning denouncing Islam with the same impudent extremist retoric Joe employs on a daily basis or the belief that because the violence had not stopped it was therefore “ineffective”. I luv the styling of JP2 as an enemy of Christ. That is just so balanced. People will start to take you seriously Joe. Not!!!
>When such a vicar seeks to make common cause with a false religion in such issues as abortion and general moral decay yet abandons his calling to proclaim the Gospel to that religion’s members, then he becomes an enemy of Christ
Like I said Joe sees no difference between the Muslim accademic with an idealized reasonable interpretation of Islamic doctrine who actually shows up at the Vatican to dialog with the Pope Vs. the lunatic Jihadist who bombs inocents. For him it’s all one religion. Objectively Islam is a heresy but it’s secondary doctrines subjectly mean different things to different Muslims. Obviously I would want to & would make cause with ordinary Muslims against abortion but the Jihadist would simply blow up the clinic/mill. Of course he will have to wait in line behind the ARMY OF GOD & other extremist “Christian” groups that have been doing that for years. 🙂 (I can use Tangents too for emotional effect).
>And, Mr. Piatak, when a Vicar of Christ kisses a Koran (and, thus, reviles the memories of Christian martyrs to Islam), then he becomes an enemy of Christ.
Ah but siding with an Atheist bigot who attacks the Church against one of Her faithful Priests DOES not make YOU an enemy of Christ BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS? Of course thankfully I find your standards bogus to begin with so be gratful.
Tom Piatak, for the record this guy DOES NOT speak for me as a “Pro-war” Catholic anymore than Cindy Shehan speaks for you. Just so we are clear guy.
>I will do what Fr. Rutler should have done and simply walk away from a madman.
I guess that was short lived.
Ben, my comments were directed toward Mr. Piatak, not to you. When you can argue using evidence and facts instead of personal attacks (as does your friend and One True God, Mark Shea), then we can talk.
Anyway, I have evidence for my assertions.
The following was said by Cdl. Paul Poupard, who was President for the Pontifical Council for Culture, one day before the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:
Many of the so-called values of present Western civilization are anything but values . (T)he destruction of the family, the exaltation of homosexuality, the spread of pornography, growing immorality, abortion, gratuitous violence, the exclusion of God in the edification of society . stir contempt and hatred for decadent Western society in other civilizations (Zenit, Vatican news service, Sept. 10, 2002).
While such things might be true in general, it’s also the “rationale” the jihadists use for their opposition to the West. For a leading cardinal to make such a remark at such a time demonstrates not only incredible density on his part but gives the enemies of civilization aid and comfort.
As far as interreligious dialogue goes, it is exceedingly overrated. Even “moderate Muslims” are enjoined by the Koran to convert non-Muslims. I didn’t make this up. If either of you have any intellectual courage, I suggest you visit a site called “Jihad Watch” (http://www.jihadwatch.org), which explains the myth of the “moderate Muslim.” It’s run by Robert Spencer, a devout Eastern Rite Christian who probably doesn’t have the same opinion of Mother Teresa that Christopher Hitchens does.
Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence that JPII encouraged the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.
Furthermore, I would like either of you to ask Egyptian Copts or other Middle Eastern Christians whether their lives were made better or worse by JPII’s Koran kissing.
Yes, “enemy of Christ” is a strong epithet to use. But some of you people are so blinded by your own infatuation with your Catholicity that you have come to believe that no Pope or Church official should be criticized for any prudential acts or decisions.
That is not faith. That is idolatry. And if you get pissed off at that, well, I don’t give a flying (expletive deleted).
Mr. D’Hippolito,
I am not particularly a fan of ecumenical dialogue. But it is one thing to say that John Paul II made mistakes in his geopolitical judgments; it is quite another to say that those mistakes made him an “enemy of Christ.” He was in fact a devoted follower of Christ, his whole life, and will most likely be raised to the altars during our lives.
In any event, it’s not clear to me that all the judgments you assail were wrong, or what you propose instead. It certainly made sense to make common cause with Moslem states against the UN proposal to make abortion a protected “human right” at the Cairo conference.
The Holy See also has few cards to play in the Mideast, and innocent Christians who live in the Mideast are likely to pay the price for inflammatory statements from Rome. Hence, a desire to avoid such statements.
Even invading the Mideast will not necessarily improve the situation for Christians living there. Certainly, the situation for Iraqi Christians has gotten much worse since our invastion: we destroyed a regime that had been relatively tolerant of them, and the violent anarchy that filled the vacuum after Hussein fell has been especially cruel to Christians, with up to half of Iraqi Christians fleeing since the invasion. If having an American army in Iraq is not enough to protect Iraqi Christians, it is hard to see what military measure in the realm of reasonable possibility might be taken to protect Middle Eastern Christians.
Finally, the track record for converting Moslems to Christianity is generally a poor one. Christian missionaries had access to much of the Moslem world during the heyday of European colonialism, and nowhere did they succeed in converting large numbers of Moslems. Neither Francis of Assisi nor Francis Xavier had much success in this area, either. John Paul’s interest in trying a different approach scarcely makes him an “enemy of Christ,” any more than Benedict XVI’s somewhat different approach to the Moslem world makes him an “enemy of Christ.”
Better Eurabia than Brave New World. All the same, though, a revival of Christendom would be better than either.
>Ben, my comments were directed toward Mr. Piatak, not to you. When you can argue using evidence and facts instead of personal attacks (as does your friend and One True God, Mark Shea), then we can talk.
But should you know by now when you publically slander the Pope with your wacko theories I’m gonna call you out on it. So clearly your “walking away” nonsense was just that, nonsense. Of course we BOTH know you define “evidence and facts” as inuendo, special pleading and extremist retoric but let’s see what you have.
>The following was said by Cdl. Paul Poupard, who was President for the Pontifical Council for Culture, one day before the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:
Many of the so-called values of present Western civilization are anything but values . (T)he destruction of the family, the exaltation of homosexuality, the spread of pornography, growing immorality, abortion, gratuitous violence, the exclusion of God in the edification of society . stir contempt and hatred for decadent Western society in other civilizations (Zenit, Vatican news service, Sept. 10, 2002).
>While such things might be true in general, it’s also the “rationale” the jihadists use for their opposition to the West.
Well you have just conceded the lion’s share of the argument to me by admiting the Cardinal’s statement is “true in general”. So I don’t know what you have left. That the Jihadists use it as a rational for terrorism DOESN’T logically follow the Cardinal has supported said terrorism or his statement gives support to such terrorisms. ARGUMENT BY SPECIAL PLEADING. Look it up.
>For a leading cardinal to make such a remark at such a time demonstrates not only incredible density on his part but gives the enemies of civilization aid and comfort.
Stating the Truth (a Truth you just conceded)gives aid & confort? Well then YOU SIR have given aid & confort to the Enemies of God True Church anytime you truthfully spoke out against the sex abuse in the Church(by your own erroneous standards that is which I reject). Since enemies of the Church use that as an excuse to get Catholics to leave the Church or stop people from joining it which is an objective threat to their eternal salvation. (Being Damned is FAR WORSE then merely being blown up). Like I said you can seperate Politics from Religion. Not that you know much about your own religion to comment with any authority.
You can’t have it both ways.
>As far as interreligious dialogue goes, it is exceedingly overrated. Even “moderate Muslims” are enjoined by the Koran to convert non-Muslims.
I think here you really mean “convert by force”. The Koran wants non-Muslims to convert & the NT wants non-Christians to convert. WELL DUH!!!! Joe I’m the one with the bad grammer stop cuting into my racket.
>I didn’t make this up. If either of you have any intellectual courage, I suggest you visit a site called “Jihad Watch” (http://www.jihadwatch.org), which explains the myth of the “moderate Muslim.” It’s run by Robert Spencer, a devout Eastern Rite Christian who probably doesn’t have the same opinion of Mother Teresa that Christopher Hitchens does.
As as Catholics we reject the Protestant heresy that even the Bible (which unlike the Koran is REALLY God’s Inspired Word) is perspicuous(i.e.clear) & can be interpreted privately.
Well why should I believe the Koran is perspicuous? It contradicts itself and as my Coptic Catholic friend pointed out to me you can prove anything with it. The Bible tells us God wrote the Natural Law in Our hearts. If an individual Muslim follows that Law by God’s Grace he will interpret the Koran in a reasonable way(& he will lay the foundation for his possible convertion to the True Faith). If he resists that Grace by following his sinful flesh he will become a Jihadist. A good moderate Muslim will simply treat passages in the Koran that command the killing of the infidels & forced conversions as temporary & incidental to that time period the same way WE TREAT passages in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to wipe out wicked nations even killing the women & the Children as not applying today(Note however it was the “Christian” Republican* Dictator Cromwell who used these VERY same passages in the OT to justify his genocide against the Irish). So your argument has no merit.
>Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence that JPII encouraged the conversion of Muslims to Christianity.
More argumentive falacy. I don’t see any evidence JPII envcouraged the conversion of anabaptists or the Amish. Another irrelavent tangent. REDEMTORIS MISSIO! Read it sometime. All non-believers have a right to hear the Gospel. JP2 said it & called on Catholics to preach the Gospel to the non-Christians. End of story. Muslims are by definition non-christians. Do the math.
>Furthermore, I would like either of you to ask Egyptian Copts or other Middle Eastern Christians whether their lives were made better or worse by JPII’s Koran kissing.
My Coptic friends have found the disrepect shown the Pope by extremists who claim to be “Catholic” more troubling. I have YET to hear a single Jihadist claim “The Pope Kissed the Koran therefore I have a right to kill you for not converting to Islam.” Jihadist don’t care. My Coptic friend told me if he gave a Bible to a Muslim friend that Muslim would most likely out of respect kiss it. Jimmy Akin asked some Chaldean Catholic friends about it & they complained the Pope put his foot on the neck of Christians. It’s subjective. Anyway this complaint has been done to death & the only intelligent critical analysis I’ve read has come from Akin.
As I recall you chimed in to promote you wacko political theory about how the Late JP2 eccumenical policies toward Muslims was causing the deaths or will cause the deaths of Christians at the hand of Jihadists. It is impossible to take that view seriously.
>Yes, “enemy of Christ” is a strong epithet to use.
Try extemist retoric & sinful slander. Shawn warned you on Jimmy Akin’s blog about this & how self defeating it was & about 40 minutes or more after you thanked him for his kindness & correction you went out & did it again(I make this calculation based on the times of the posts). Your learning curve is way off. Yet I know you WON’T learn from exprerience & history will repeat itself.
>But some of you people are so blinded by your own infatuation with your Catholicity that you have come to believe that no Pope or Church official should be criticized for any prudential acts or decisions.
I am NOT infatuated with my Catholicity I LOVE MY Catholicity. Just like I love Rosemarie or my kids or being of Scotish origin. Loving what is Catholic is the essence of being Catholic. How can I hate what I am? How can I hate what gives meaning to life & was given to me as an undiserved gift by God? You have some really objectively disordered views of a religion you claim to belong too. Either you really don’t know what Catholicity is or you do, reject it & prove my charge you are a heretic.
>That is not faith. That is idolatry.
No idolatry is the giving of Divine Worship to that which is not the True God. You love your political ideology more the God’s Church IMHO.
>And if you get pissed off at that, well, I don’t give a flying (expletive deleted).
I don’t give a flying (expletive deleted) about your wacko political theories & self-defeating rationalizations for you bad behavior while blaming Mark Shea for a bad reputation you clearly brought on yourself. You think I react negatively \ to you because of what Mark Shea says about you? Hey read what you have written & formed the only obvious opinion. I don’t even talk to Shea outside a comments box & even then we never interact.
Note: *Of course by Republican I’m using the old British definition & NOT the modern American One.
That the Jihadists use it as a rational for terrorism DOESN’T logically follow the Cardinal has supported said terrorism or his statement gives support to such terrorism.
But you know something, Ben? Timing is everything. Had Poupard said it any other time, I wouldn’t have brought it up. The fact that he said it on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks shows either his naivete about the nature of Islamic terrorism or his outright hostility toward the West as a whole, especially since he uses the rationalizations that the jihadists use.
Don’t forget that one archbishop, Hilarion Capucci, used his diplomatic Mercedes to hide weapons to give to Palestinian terrorists.
The fact is, Ben, that there exists in the Vatican a pro-Arab, pro-Islam, anti-Israel, anti-American faction. People like Poupard hide their views behind pious rhetoric. If you had read my articles with any sense of objectivity, you would have understood that.
YOU SIR have given aid & confort to the Enemies of God True Church anytime you truthfully spoke out against the sex abuse in the Church(by your own erroneous standards that is which I reject).
Ben, the abusive priests and their enabling bishops gave more aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church than I ever could. Why don’t you save some of your anger toward them?
]more to come
Mr. D’Hippolito,
I notice that despite saying you were directing your comments to me and not Ben, you ignored what I wrote and went after Ben instead. I wonder why?
In any event, Cardinal Poupard offered an accurate statement. Unfortunately, the West is awash in immorality, which is why only a return to the religion that built the West will save the West. And there is no question but that the immorality of the West helps ben Laden and his ilk gain recruits.
Why should I care if Cardinal Poupard is “anti-Israel?” There is absolutely no requirement for Catholics to be “pro-Israel,” any more than there is a requirement for Catholics to be “pro-Bolivia.” Catholics are required to love their own countries and to treat other countries in accord with natural law, and nothing Cardinal Poupard said contravenes that. You may wish that Catholics were required to be pro-Israel, but we’re not. Indeed, the Holy See has always recognized the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland.
John Paul II also prayed at the Wailing Wall and a synagogue. In fact, he prayed everywhere he went. Offering a prayer in a non-Christian place of worship is not the same as offering a non-Christian prayer.
Your views of John Paul II are actually very similar to Hitchens’ views of him. I’d be happy to debate both of you about John Paul. I’d suggest Krakow as the venue, and Lech Walesa as the moderator. If there’s a bigger “enemy of Christ” out there than John Paul, it’s surely Walesa and all those foolish Poles who took to heart what “Poop John Baal” told them.
>But you know something, Ben? Timing is everything. Had Poupard said it any other time, I wouldn’t have brought it up. The fact that he said it on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks shows either his naivete about the nature of Islamic terrorism or his outright hostility toward the West as a whole, especially since he uses the rationalizations that the jihadists use.
This is merely what you have already said, without addressing what I have said, a clear sign you have lost this argument. You have not proven Jihadist where helped just because the Cardinal spoke against immorality in the west you merely assume it without proof. Again this is SPECIAL PLEADING.
Merely repeating you error doesn’t make it true.
>Don’t forget that one archbishop, Hilarion Capucci, used his diplomatic Mercedes to hide weapons to give to Palestinian terrorists.
Tangent alert!!! Yes way back in 1974 before John Paul II. The Israelis released him BTW. In the 16th century a Catholic Cardinal collected & burned copies of the Talmud. This is all relavent how? Short answer it is not. You are losing this argument so you desperate & looking for any stick to beat the Church with. Who need anti-Catholic fundies when Joe D is around? Shawn warned you about extremist arguments & tangents. Like I said small learning curve.
>The fact is, Ben, that there exists in the Vatican a pro-Arab, pro-Islam, anti-Israel, anti-American faction. People like Poupard hide their views behind pious rhetoric. If you had read my articles with any sense of objectivity, you would have understood that.
Again with the tangents. This has to do with you wacko claims JP2 eccumencial Policy causes Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims how?
This is also comical since lunatic “Catholic” anti-Semites accused the last Pope & Paul VI of being secret Jews and or Jewish sympathizers. Which of you self-hating “Catholic” anti-Catholic conpiracy mongerers should I believe? Interesting how anti-Catholic bigots have this mutual tendancy to bash the Vatican & claim the Vatican denzens are secret sympathizers to the ideology they believe is the source of ultimate evil in the world(Islam, Zionism etc).
>Ben, the abusive priests and their enabling bishops gave more aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church than I ever could. Why don’t you save some of your anger toward them?
I am angry at specific guilty Priests you OTOH seem to be angry at all of them (your abuse of Fr. Rutler is proof of that). This is your way of admiting you don’t have a reasonable answer to explain your double standards & hypocracy. You grant yourself the UNLIMITIED RIGHT to speak out against the immoralities in the Church & denounce bishops for not doing so but if a Cardinal does speak out against immoralities then that is wrong? The double standard is irrational and of course classic Joe’D.
>>As as Catholics we reject the Protestant heresy that even the Bible (which unlike the Koran is REALLY God’s Inspired Word) is perspicuous(i.e.clear)…
>Ben, just what the Hell are you talking about? Spencer is an Eastern Rite Christian, not a Protestant.
That doesn’t mean this gentilmen’s implied presuposition that the Koran is perspicuous is true. Funny how when it’s convenient for your wacko ideology all of a sudden because someone is Catholic they can do no wrong. Amusing.
My original argument still stands. Clearly you have neither the theological or intellectual ability to answer it. The Koran is man made Joe. It’s meaning is MORE subjective than the Bible which is of The Divine.
>Well, Ben, if you’re such a good Catholic, then why do you mock the idea of apologizing to somebody whom you misidentified, “austin,” and then proceeded to insult based on that misidentification?
I thought Austin was you. Given he uses your retoric, holds to your ideas, despises Mark Shea, you told me personally that you agree him, & you think he is far more intelligent than Shea & me put together then I fail to see what the insult was? If he is a real person (and not a pseudonym) he can tell me himself if he was offended & I will consider an apology.
Let us be honest Joe. If YOU cared at all about apologies you would have apologized for smearing John Paul II by claiming he might have commited suicide. You didn’t. Apologies are for you a form of oneupsmanship. Nothing more. I won’t play your game.
>Ben, you’re right. You’re not infatuated with your Catholicity. YOU WORSHIP YOUR CATHOLICITY BECAUSE YOUR ‘CATHOLICITY’ IS AN EXTENTION OF YOUR IMMATURE, RAGING EGO. Your answers to my challenges illustrate that clearly.
I worship the Trinity & I honor & love Catholicism. Not being able to tell the difference between worship & honor is a sure sign of Protestant heresy. Joe your venom illustrates you are a Self-hating Catholic. You hate all that is Catholic. For the past couple of days I’ve seen you do nothing but lash out against anything & everything that has to do with being a loyal Catholic. You accused bishops of not speaking out for Terri Shalvo(then that was proven bogus) but you condemned Fr. Rutler when he spoke out against Hitchens. You want the Pope to indiscriminatly pronounce Islam a threat to civilization(regardless of the consecuences or cost to human lives) & yet you condemn Fr. Rutler for being uncharitable toward Hitchens.
Make up your mind.
>Now why would I use “enemy of Christ” to describe JPII? Simple. JPII prayed to a false God when he visited and prayed in the mosque at Damascus during his last trip to the Middle East. He committed an act of idolatry.
You used it because you are in love with self-defeating extemist retoric, you spurn reason & you have a small learning curve having forgotten in less than 47 minutes the lessons Shawn taught you.
Also every Melkite, Coptic and Maronite Church I’ve ever been too called God Allah in the Arabic prayers found in the Liturgy so they are idolators too? That would go for the guy who runs Jihadwatch if he is a middle eastern Catholic. Pope St Gregory VII SAID Muslims worship the same God we do(they just have an incorrect understanding of his inner nature). I believe in Allah. I believe in Allah Al Ab & Allah Al Kalam & the Rual Al Qudds & that they are all Alhad. “Allah” os Arabic for “The God” just as “God” is Anglo-Germanic for Elohim. Clearly you are one of these plebes who thinks God only speaks or understands English.
>Yes, I know that he has written about the difference between “Allah” and Yahweh, and about Islam and Christianity. Then why pray in a mosque?
Why would God stop listening to a Christian just because he stepped into a mosque? So there is like a null-God forcefield where the Trinue God ceases to exist covering every Mosque in the world that blocks transmission Christians prayers to Him? You admit JP2 wrote about the difference between the Christian & Islamic understanding of God yet somehow when JP2 went into the Mosque he thought God transformed into a unitarian deity?
Joe I’m only gonna tell ya this once. Lay off the drugs.
>Why didn’t he respectfully decline?
Because he always reached out in good will to Muslims or any other people of good will & those of good will responded. That’s his job. It’s the Job of the CIA & the Army etc to hunt down & kill Jihadists. Not the Pope. It is the Job of the Pope to love Muslims with Christian Charity. He didn’t share your insane hatred of Muslims which clearly has spilled out against your fellow Catholics, against priests & manafests itself as self-hatred of your own Catholicity. He didn’t hold your “all Muslims are evil mojo”. Thank the Trinue Allah for that!
>Do you think Muslims pray in Christian churches?
I know they do. In Egypt whenever there is an Apparition of the Virgin Mary Muslims show up to the Church in droves & venerate Her. Muslims in Eqypt seek out Coptic Priests to bless their houses. If an Eqyptian Muslim is possessed by an evil spirit he doesn’t go to an Imam he goes to a Christian Priest for exocism. Muslim visit Christian Shrines. This has been going on for centuries. Shows what you know.
>There are times to put your actions where your words are.
Unless your name is Poupard then we don’t care about words do we Joe?
Joe you love your pseudo right-wing political ideology more than your Catholicity. That is real idolatry(by your defective erroneous definition of idolatry that is) & it has not served you at all.
You should have just kept walking.
Comments are closed.