Proving Manuel II Paleologus right

Thank Heaven, and I do mean this sincerely, someone still has a sense of humor. Catholic and Protestant alike have been ripped, scourged, thrown down and danced upon, and still we are able to come up smiling!
I am afraid of Islamofascists because they can not laugh, will not laugh.

Two priests from our diocese recently came back from home visitations to Nigeria and Sudan. Both were forced to travel incognito,celebrate Mass in garages, etc, depending on information from Catholics to avoid being where the militant Muslims are--they are killing priests. Praise God that He brought them safely back to us! Pray the rosary (our weapon of choice) for the conversion of Muslims.

again, i do not believe the pope has anything to apologize for. i do think however, the Muslims are acting awfully defensive! i think they doth protest tooooooooo much!

We are the Religion of Peace ™, and if you dare to say otherwise, we will kill you.

It's not fault of the New York Times that Benedict mispoke. And it's ironic that Popes John, Paul VI, John Paul I, or John Paul II got through their entire papacy without offending any followers of Islam. But then it's no shock that Cardinal Ratzinger is living up to his divisive reputation since his election as Pope.

Pope Benedict didn't misspeak. He quoted something that is apparently very true. He apologized probably to save innocent victims from the wrath of angry Islamic extremists.

Kim, a follower of Islam SHOT JPII back in the 80's and nearly killed him.

Kim, if you will read the pope's discourse thoroughly, you will know that he was referring to past and present perspectives that have contributed to the present climate of opposition between the West and Islam. The sum total of the meaning of his discourse clearly was an appeal for frank and sincere dialogue with great reciprocal respect.

If you will read his discource honestly, you will see that it is not divisive at all. Rather, what is divisive is the way you prejudicially see and express things.

His text:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Viva il papa!

I am afraid of Islamofascists because they can not laugh, will not laugh.

I'm not. It's further evidence that I've picked the right enemies.
So to speak.

Popes of the past have been barbaric Jehadist, like it or not. Pick up any encyclopaedia, and read for yourself. The following is one example... Popes of the past have been barbaric Jehadist, like it or not. Pick up any encyclopaedia, and read for yourself. The following is one example... The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209 - 1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the religion practiced by the Cathars of Languedoc, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy considered apostasy. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards; the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France, acting as essentially Catholic mercenaries, who then acquired regions for France which at the time had closer cultural and language ties to Catalonia (see Occitan); finally, the Albigensian Crusade had a role in the creation and institutionalization of both the Dominican Order and the Medieval Inquisition.

The only reason for the present day calm is they have the uper hand, money, power and Israel.

Mohamed, it seems to me you are comparing an early action of the Church to the present actions of Islamofascists.

But I ask you: Were either of them right in their violence?

Because, see, you point out our violent history and I say you're right. We have had barbaric jihadist popes before. Fortunately, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit we have emerged from such violence.

The Pope points out Islam's violent history, and how do Islamofascists react? With MORE violence.

-El S.

Like much of history we are forced fed in liberal American and Eurpean schools (I was brainwashed into thinking how great the French Revolution was), please realize that school and even the church today is under a liberal modernistic hangover that is a fallacy

In 711, the Arab government of North Africa was under the authority of Mousa ben Nassair, who depended upon Caliph Walid of Damascus. Mousa sent Tarik ben Ziyad, his general, to cross the Strait of Gibraltar and invade Spain. With the Catholic army destroyed, Tarik took city after city: Ecija, Cordova, Toledo, Medina-Sidonia, Carmona, Seville, Merida, etc. In less than two years, almost all of Sapin would be taken by the Arabs. Only 700 years later, in 1492, would the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella expel the Moors from Granada in the Reconquista

The Holy Crusades were inspired by the revulsion Christians felt at exactly the sort of "ethnic cleansing" now being perpetrated against Catholics in southern Sudan and by supreme indignation at the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre. Pope Blessed Urban II realized that a crusade was the only hope for Christendom. His call was answered enthusiastically the nobility of Europe. Later, St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached the Second Crusade (1133-1137). St. Francis personally accompanied the Fifth Crusade (1217-1219), inaugurated by Pope Innocent III, and attempted to convert the Mohammedan leader Sultan Malek-el-Kamil, saying, "We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammed, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life."

In time of war there will always be accidents and misdeeds. That is the nature of war.

Good post, John!

Mr. Mohamed's statement is misleading. Certainly there have been violent acts perpetrated by Catholics, but such acts are not instititutionalized in the Catholic Church, as it is in Islam. The Catholic Church, for example, has no theology on the Crusades; just check out the Catechism. Islam, on the other hand, has institutionalized violence through the theology and ideology of Jihad. Catholicism has nothing equivalent to Jihad, not even the Crusades. The Church can therefore drop "crusading" anytime since it is not integral to the Faith. Islam simply cannot drop, avoid or ignore Jihad, since it is one of the fundamental elements of the Islamic faith. As one protestor's sign said, "Jihad is the Hump [backbone] of Islam."

Regarding above comments on the anti-Cathari Crusades.
If there were Cathari and Albigensians active today, any secular government would be obliged to react against them. They believed and acted on the idea that all authority was evil, whether religious or secular. They believed that suicide was a sacrament (which they called consolamentum) because this world was created by an evil god. Because they believed matter was evil, it did not matter if they lied about their Cathari or Albigensian practises, because lies were told by the body, which was evil anyways.

Modern parallels would be communist revolutionaries (including such successful murderers as Pol-Pot), and cults such as Jimmy Jones and others that incorporated suicide. A parallel in the Moslem world might be Rashid ad-Din, who supposedly kept his henchmen drugged on hashish and sent them on suicide missions to assassinate rivals. He attempted to assassinate Saladin.

I am sure that Saladin would have dealt severely with Rashid ad-Din, if he were able.

As far as the Inquisition, it was institutionalized and still exists in a modified form, and a good thing too. Perhaps if our Moslem neighbors had such an institution, the rest of us could know when someone who makes an inflammatory statement does, or does not, speak for Islam. Instead, we see mullahs issuing contradictory fatwas, and it seems that there is no one real leader. And if Judaism had its own Inquisition, then perhaps people like H. Morgenthaler might be excommunicated, and that would clear the air, and he could not use his "holocaust" arguments (that opponents to abortion are like Nazis, and so he as a Jew has the higher moral ground).

The Inquisition was directed at people who pretended to be Catholic, but secretly practised something else (Albigensianism, Judaism, etc.). It was not directed at those who did not profess the Catholic Faith.

One more comment within the comment. The Catholic Church has harbored "jihadists" of a sort, but repudiated them, namely those who preach "liberation theology" which adapted a Marxist idea of violent revolution. However, thanks to our Inquisition, it is clear that those who preach violent revolution do not have the endorsement of the Church.

"And it's ironic that Popes John, Paul VI, John Paul I, or John Paul II got through their entire papacy without offending any followers of Islam."

Its ironic that you've made this far and not understood the meaning of the word irony in a post about irony.