The same church that is working for the Mexicanization of my country is also giving in to Islam in Europe. With a church this evil it is no wonder that millions are choosing atheism, evangelicalism, or are simply giving up on life and not having children.

Heck, it isn't just in the US or in Europe that the Romanists are causing problems. In Latin America the Church has a history of preaching 'Liberation Theology,' spreading misery, poverty and revolution to millions of innocent mestizos and mulattoes.

Some of the Catholics on this thread may cite some obscure lecture given by a member of the hierarchy or even the pope himself, but actions speak louder than words. The Church could have excommunicated Ted Kennedy for supporting abortion or engaging in adultery, but has instead let the leading advocate of Mexican immigration into the United States receive communion from popes, his bishop and his local priest. Ted must be doing something the Church approves of, since he is in such good standing with it.

I honestly think that author Tiberge who posted this newsflash on his blog and - as others have already suggested - should also take into account the Regensburg lecture by B-16, eh.. that this topicstarter could have done a better job at interpreting the statements made by members of the Roman Catholic clergy.

Pfew, was that long enough for an opener?

From the very beginning Tiberge is off to something that closely resembles a perfect piece of suggestive writing. First there's the pretty much foregone conclusion, then some "it is said.." lines that probably refer to the opinions of Mme Delcambre and after that the story continues with some illustrations to fill in the details and provide some anecdotal support for the claims.

When reading those statements, I find it very hard to regard them as compelling material upon which to base any warnings about collaboration, voiced by the author. In fact, it isn't all that difficult to come up with quotes that defuse the alarming title:

".. The Pope spoke of the Holy Scriptures, of the Christian book which certainly is not the Muslim book.."

Talk of common ground, maybe, but surely also a strong emphasis on difference, n'est ce pas? And again, in the nxt message that allegedly "goes even further", what is actually emphasized?:

".. I need only remind you that the family is the first school in which one learns respect for others, mindful of the identity and the difference of each one.."

 

Right.

So why the alarmist tone, while at the same time the author might be expected to know full well the Pope's position on "reciprocity" for example, featuring prominently in articles by e.g. Daniel Pipes, titled "The Vatican confronts Islam".
The small scale comments quoted in the article above read more like some very polite and - for some who are evidently less capable of reading between the lines - perhaps overly veiled reworkings of this papal doctrine.

The moment the author actually provides something of an analysis of his own is a bit disappointing, to say the least. We are left with a rather sarcastic and really somewhat cheap remark about polygamy and honour killings. If this represents serious analysis, then I guess any local pub in our hood can pass as the next best political think-(and drink-)tank. And it's such a pitty, 'cause the whole issue of uncritically conducted "interreligious dialogue" that so many in the politicial establishment seem to fancy, is a serious one that deserves sharper dissection than the author of this blunted article has chosen to undertake.

Just about the only statement of any interest pops up at the very end, about Muslims enduring hard times (indeed) if they dare convert to the Roman Catholic Church (or christianity if you will). Perhaps nxt time a more balanced piece about that? Or does the author think B-16 was only entertaining some superficial pr-stunt when he baptized Italy's most prominent Muslim the other day?

Or is it going to be the same article but now titled: "Secularism and Islam share common ground" Plenty alarming illustrations on that one ;-)

So what's the deal here with Tiberge and this sort of reporting about Islamization? Is he one of those people who believe any serious problem only acquires really scary proportions once "The Vatican" is involved?

Hope not.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag

Perhaps, the article of Tiberge is exposing not so much a problem with the "catholic church" as such, but rather with the personality of cardinal Bertone.  At the same time, it must be recognised that he is "one of the highest-ranking officials" of the catholic church. There have been other indications of disturbing bias in the past record of Bertone.  "The church" better deal with its Bertone problem.  And, of course, this problem is linked to the wider problem that Paganini already mentioned.

the problem is not the catholic church, but the problem is europe (or european christians)

Many of them are starting to hate our society that (sometimes very virulent and nasty) mocks the church and catholicism. Their hate turns into love for islam that is able to enforce 'respect' from leftish-secular authorities/media/etc. But ofcourse, those christians are weak and stupid, they don't see that islam is the violent and oppresive ennemy of anything that isn't islamic. Their 'love' for islam isn't real caritas anyway, it's hate in disguise for european society.

Although I understand your premise and concern (that it is worrying Catholic clerics are getting too cosy with Islam), I do not think the example of Cardinal Bertone is a good one.

The Common ground Christians have with non-Muslims is that we are all brothers (from God the Father) and we are called to love all. What good is it for a Christian to love only those who love you? And did not Christ come for the sick, not the healthy?

snubbing the Muslims, or the militant secularists, because you disagree with them is unchristian. However, a Christian can speak to a Muslim and tell them their religion is violent and heretical etc., yet still have openness and love for them.

Maybe you need to re-read the regensburg speech; was that not calling a spade a spade by the Pope, yet it was done without hate?

Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians, North Africans, Illyrians, and Anatolians were leading Christian nations before they were conquered and forcibly converted by invading and plundering Moslem armies.  They should return to the fold of Christianity, recover their love for God in Christ, and shed the envious, hateful heresy of Islam.  Their love of God, His Law, purity, and justice, which Islam perverts to savage purposes, will find its true calling when it is redirected to love of Christ instead of rage at infidels.  As Christians--prodigal sons and daughters, or returning lost sheep--re-converted Moslems could add a great deal to Christendom. 

The re-conversion of Moslems should therefore be the goal of the Church, not confirmation of their heresy. Unconverted Moslems will interpret confirmation, coexistence, or approbation as "submission" and will be encouraged to persist in their heresy, at the peril of their souls, and at the peril of the peace and security of their neighbors.

Any re-spiritualization will be done as a reaction to Islam's invasion by invitation of the continent. There is common ground between the Catholic Church and Islam, however: oxygen. From there, no commonality exists and it's foolish to think that it does. Of course, that has not slowed them down before, nor will it this time. A conciliatory approach to Islam will result in Orwell's vision of the future, " If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human(infidel's)face--forever."