Skip to main content

The Two Sides to Pope Paul II

This past week has seen millions of Catholics commemorate the first anniversary of the death of Pope Paul II.

Many have paid tribute to the late Pope for, amongst other things, having built bridges of understanding between Jews and Catholics.

As Haaretz writes in this opening paragraph on the topic of Pope Paul II

"The first anniversary of the death of John Paul II was commemorated this week not only by millions of Catholics, but also by many Jews for whom his reign redefined inter-religious relations. However, last April's uniformly positive appraisals of this "hero of reconciliation" by Israeli and Jewish groups presented an oversimplified picture of a more complex reality. One year on, it is time to take a more critical look."

And the "critical look" that Haaretz speaks of [see the full article here] doesn't portray the late Pope quite in the same positive light as has been the case in the past. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that the late Pope exhibited more than a degree of double standards between what he said and wrote and some of his actual deeds and actions.

Comments

Canute said…
If you can find an example of the Jews saying anything nice about anyone else then I would like to see it. They are always on a jihad against Muslims, christians and everyone else on the planet including Catholics. They expect everyone else to like them as their entitlement but at the same time no one is to expect equal treatment.

The new Pope most certainly should not visit Israel. It is a terrorist state and the biggest problem that we have today.

If ethnic cleansing is wrong then what Jews are doing to Palestinians is wrong.

If terrorism is wrong then Israel is doing wrong.

If apartied in South Africa was wrong then what Jews are doing is wrong.

Jews should take a look at their own hatred and their own actions before they sit in judgement of the Pope or Mel Gibson or anyone else. Since when do Jews judge what Christians should believe. They are the only ones who could be so arrogant!
April 08, 2006 9:10 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more