Pope Francis condemns ‘unprecedented’ terrorist violence in Good Friday speech

[rooster59]

Pope Francis condemns ‘unprecedented’ terrorist violence in Good Friday speech



Pope Francis has used his Good Friday address to condemn Europe’s reaction to the migrant crisis, which he said had been blunted by our “indifferent and anaesthetised conscience”.

After the traditional “Stations of the Cross” procession around Rome’s Colosseum, he also criticised the unchecked destruction of the environment.

And, having already condemned the “cruel abominations” of the Brussels attacks earlier in the week, the pope reserved some of his strongest words for the perpetrators and supporters of such violence.

“Oh Cross of Christ, today too we see you in expressions of fundamentalism and in terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions which profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence,” Pope Francis said.

Other themes the pope also condemned in his address included the persecution of Christians, individualistic society, paedophile priests and slavery.

Good Friday sees Christians mark the day Jesus was crucified. In Spain, Easter weekend commemorations began with elaborate processions in Seville and other towns and cities.

Among the world’s other Good Friday events, Catholic worshippers in the Mexican city of Taxco held an overnight procession, carrying crosses and flagellating themselves.

Masked peninents known as “encruzados” (the crucified ones) carried bundles of thorny branches on their backs.

Other devotees whipped themselves. The self-flagellation ritual representing sacrifice and atonement for sins is in line with a tradition in the city dating back to 1622.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-03-27

[edwinchester]

That pic would be great for a caption contest.

[Scott]

That pic would be great for a caption contest.

Thanks, but out of respect for our more religious members (we do have a few), we will refrain from doing that.

[MockingJay]

Now I know where the term "missionary position" originates from...

[manfredtillmann]

given how many people have died and suffered in the hands of the catholic inquisition and their crusades, which wiped out entire civilizations, and their orphanages, where untold children were subjected to abuse - sexual and otherwise - i don't think that the pope, no matter how much more liberal he seems, has any right to condemn the religious extremism of other denominations.

people like him, who claim to act in the name of some imagined spiritual entity, live in a dream world.

his believes and that of his followers, and the conflicts arising out of comparisons between who is the better perceived spiritual entity giving the better perceived guidance are the core of untold conflict and dispute on this planet.

the sooner mankind abandons religion the sooner we will all live in peace.

[arjunadawn]

Regardless of how many suffered under the previous stewards of his faith the lukewarm "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is a cowardly way to indict the perpetrators of current terrorism/jihad (if one objects to the use of "cowardly" the bar is pretty high to explain how this statement is not). By not stating exactly who he means he permits the church/himself... what? Plausible denial? An escape clause if his statement receives condemnation or rebuke? Who are you talking about Papa? Say it. Also, be clear: You believe in the Trinity, those who "profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence" most certainly do not believe in the Triune God! So, be clear, to who's god do you refer?

Lastly, if the Church continues to insist on blending the corporeal and spiritual worlds as the debauchery of 2,000 years reflects, at least be accurate; there most definitely is precedence for violence "justif[ied]" in the "name of god." It is positively untrue justifying such violence lacks predecessor examples. In fact, if we entirely remove your religion from a mind exercise we find ample precedent for terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions."

Note: "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is how I or a fellow posters might write to avoid stepping over a real or imagined line. Yea, we can be more precise, but often we make the statement more bland to be less offensive. We are not leaders of the largest/oldest religion/Diplomatic House on earth. We do not have our own State, passports, stamps, currency, etc. In diplomatic speak alone, this is an absurd statement. It is a dhimmi statement.

[Dumbastheycome]

His remarks may have gained some credibility if he had also apologized for the infliction similar historical atrocities under the banner of his own organization!

Self abscribed ascension to a presumed position of superiority is.........condescension and arrogance !

[up-country_sinclair]

some religions which profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence

Religions that use the holy name to justify violence. Imagine that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

[geriatrickid]

His remarks may have gained some credibility if he had also apologized for the infliction similar historical atrocities under the banner of his own organization!

Self abscribed ascension to a presumed position of superiority is.........condescension and arrogance !

He has, sort of. There's just so much he can say or do without splitting the group he belongs to. Look at those lunatics flagellating themselves and nailing themselves to crosses. Do you think they can be reasoned with?

[Dumbastheycome]

His remarks may have gained some credibility if he had also apologized for the infliction similar historical atrocities under the banner of his own organization!

Self abscribed ascension to a presumed position of superiority is.........condescension and arrogance !

He has, sort of. There's just so much he can say or do without splitting the group he belongs to. Look at those lunatics flagellating themselves and nailing themselves to crosses. Do you think they can be reasoned with?

Spit or split ! The "reason" has one reason.

$.

Definition?

Humanitarian "Treason".

Culmination?

[shirtless]

He is only a man of words , he should be a politician.

[slipperylobster]

Glad he is on our side ....

[Usernames]

His remarks may have gained some credibility if he had also apologized for the infliction similar historical atrocities under the banner of his own organization!

Self abscribed ascension to a presumed position of superiority is.........condescension and arrogance !

He has, sort of. There's just so much he can say or do without splitting the group he belongs to. Look at those lunatics flagellating themselves and nailing themselves to crosses. Do you think they can be reasoned with?

Sort of an aside, but the flagellant movement, emanating from the time of the Black Death, is actually somewhat interesting. The Church hated it, because its leaders and members came from outside the Church and, hence, outside their control. It's no coincidence that the flagellant movement was strongest in areas where the Reformation later came about. It was a genuine populist revolt, in many ways. The Church, like most political organizations, hates most what it cannot control.

[arjunadawn]

some religions which profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence

Religions that use the holy name to justify violence. Imagine that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Unsure of the aim here but it didn't hit. The Spanish Inquisition was a response of Reconquesta and hardly the rabid Catholic orthodoxy I think is asserted above. Only 3,000 people died during this time. This is about 100 times less than those since 9/11. Indeed, on 9/11 approximately 3,000 died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

This period, also not unlike the other you note- crusade era- was a response to events imposed by another faith. Creation ex nihlo does not happen. All things have a precursor. In these cases, the precursor to the crusades/inquisition was another religion.

[ilostmypassword]

Regardless of how many suffered under the previous stewards of his faith the lukewarm "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is a cowardly way to indict the perpetrators of current terrorism/jihad (if one objects to the use of "cowardly" the bar is pretty high to explain how this statement is not). By not stating exactly who he means he permits the church/himself... what? Plausible denial? An escape clause if his statement receives condemnation or rebuke? Who are you talking about Papa? Say it. Also, be clear: You believe in the Trinity, those who "profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence" most certainly do not believe in the Triune God! So, be clear, to who's god do you refer?

Lastly, if the Church continues to insist on blending the corporeal and spiritual worlds as the debauchery of 2,000 years reflects, at least be accurate; there most definitely is precedence for violence "justif[ied]" in the "name of god." It is positively untrue justifying such violence lacks predecessor examples. In fact, if we entirely remove your religion from a mind exercise we find ample precedent for terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions."

Note: "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is how I or a fellow posters might write to avoid stepping over a real or imagined line. Yea, we can be more precise, but often we make the statement more bland to be less offensive. We are not leaders of the largest/oldest religion/Diplomatic House on earth. We do not have our own State, passports, stamps, currency, etc. In diplomatic speak alone, this is an absurd statement. It is a dhimmi statement.

Well, it's not only Moslems who don't believe in The Triune God. It's also Jews. And Christians believe that they became the new servants of God when most Jews rejected Jesus. Hence the "new" in New Testament. So when the Christians became the new servants of God, was it a different God from the indivisible one the Jews worshipped? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Ace of Pop]

Yet his lot helped the Gestapo Killers lest we foreget..Same old Wine, new Bottle

[arjunadawn]

Regardless of how many suffered under the previous stewards of his faith the lukewarm "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is a cowardly way to indict the perpetrators of current terrorism/jihad (if one objects to the use of "cowardly" the bar is pretty high to explain how this statement is not). By not stating exactly who he means he permits the church/himself... what? Plausible denial? An escape clause if his statement receives condemnation or rebuke? Who are you talking about Papa? Say it. Also, be clear: You believe in the Trinity, those who "profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence" most certainly do not believe in the Triune God! So, be clear, to who's god do you refer?

Lastly, if the Church continues to insist on blending the corporeal and spiritual worlds as the debauchery of 2,000 years reflects, at least be accurate; there most definitely is precedence for violence "justif[ied]" in the "name of god." It is positively untrue justifying such violence lacks predecessor examples. In fact, if we entirely remove your religion from a mind exercise we find ample precedent for terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions."

Note: "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is how I or a fellow posters might write to avoid stepping over a real or imagined line. Yea, we can be more precise, but often we make the statement more bland to be less offensive. We are not leaders of the largest/oldest religion/Diplomatic House on earth. We do not have our own State, passports, stamps, currency, etc. In diplomatic speak alone, this is an absurd statement. It is a dhimmi statement.

Well, it's not only Moslems who don't believe in The Triune God. It's also Jews. And Christians believe that they became the new servants of God when most Jews rejected Jesus. Hence the "new" in New Testament. So when the Christians became the new servants of God, was it a different God from the indivisible one the Jews worshipped? Doesn't make sense to me.

My post only incidentally mentions the trinity of godhead and its relation to who the pope really speaks about, and does so in relation to- "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions..." Jews are not committing terrorist acts in the name of YWH to the point where it provokes the Pontiff to make a global announcement. Jews were not overlooked. They are unrelated to my post.

The point is, we all know the pope was not talking about Christians or Jews. So, who he was talking about was clearly the third Semitic faith. Thus the post is about their relationship to the god of the papacy. This point is the single clear point of my post. Extrapolating it to apply to Jews or any others simply does not work. It is false logic and it is not mine.

[ilostmypassword]

Regardless of how many suffered under the previous stewards of his faith the lukewarm "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is a cowardly way to indict the perpetrators of current terrorism/jihad (if one objects to the use of "cowardly" the bar is pretty high to explain how this statement is not). By not stating exactly who he means he permits the church/himself... what? Plausible denial? An escape clause if his statement receives condemnation or rebuke? Who are you talking about Papa? Say it. Also, be clear: You believe in the Trinity, those who "profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence" most certainly do not believe in the Triune God! So, be clear, to who's god do you refer?

Lastly, if the Church continues to insist on blending the corporeal and spiritual worlds as the debauchery of 2,000 years reflects, at least be accurate; there most definitely is precedence for violence "justif[ied]" in the "name of god." It is positively untrue justifying such violence lacks predecessor examples. In fact, if we entirely remove your religion from a mind exercise we find ample precedent for terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions."

Note: "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is how I or a fellow posters might write to avoid stepping over a real or imagined line. Yea, we can be more precise, but often we make the statement more bland to be less offensive. We are not leaders of the largest/oldest religion/Diplomatic House on earth. We do not have our own State, passports, stamps, currency, etc. In diplomatic speak alone, this is an absurd statement. It is a dhimmi statement.

Well, it's not only Moslems who don't believe in The Triune God. It's also Jews. And Christians believe that they became the new servants of God when most Jews rejected Jesus. Hence the "new" in New Testament. So when the Christians became the new servants of God, was it a different God from the indivisible one the Jews worshipped? Doesn't make sense to me.

My post only incidentally mentions the trinity of godhead and its relation to who the pope really speaks about, and does so in relation to- "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions..." Jews are not committing terrorist acts in the name of YWH to the point where it provokes the Pontiff to make a global announcement. Jews were not overlooked. They are unrelated to my post.

The point is, we all know the pope was not talking about Christians or Jews. So, who he was talking about was clearly the third Semitic faith. Thus the post is about their relationship to the god of the papacy. This point is the single clear point of my post. Extrapolating it to apply to Jews or any others simply does not work. It is false logic and it is not mine.

So you weren't being circumlocutory about Islam? Was it Wicca you were tiptoeing around?

[arjunadawn]

Regardless of how many suffered under the previous stewards of his faith the lukewarm "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is a cowardly way to indict the perpetrators of current terrorism/jihad (if one objects to the use of "cowardly" the bar is pretty high to explain how this statement is not). By not stating exactly who he means he permits the church/himself... what? Plausible denial? An escape clause if his statement receives condemnation or rebuke? Who are you talking about Papa? Say it. Also, be clear: You believe in the Trinity, those who "profane the name of God and which use the holy name to justify their unprecedented violence" most certainly do not believe in the Triune God! So, be clear, to who's god do you refer?

Lastly, if the Church continues to insist on blending the corporeal and spiritual worlds as the debauchery of 2,000 years reflects, at least be accurate; there most definitely is precedence for violence "justif[ied]" in the "name of god." It is positively untrue justifying such violence lacks predecessor examples. In fact, if we entirely remove your religion from a mind exercise we find ample precedent for terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions."

Note: "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions" is how I or a fellow posters might write to avoid stepping over a real or imagined line. Yea, we can be more precise, but often we make the statement more bland to be less offensive. We are not leaders of the largest/oldest religion/Diplomatic House on earth. We do not have our own State, passports, stamps, currency, etc. In diplomatic speak alone, this is an absurd statement. It is a dhimmi statement.

Well, it's not only Moslems who don't believe in The Triune God. It's also Jews. And Christians believe that they became the new servants of God when most Jews rejected Jesus. Hence the "new" in New Testament. So when the Christians became the new servants of God, was it a different God from the indivisible one the Jews worshipped? Doesn't make sense to me.

My post only incidentally mentions the trinity of godhead and its relation to who the pope really speaks about, and does so in relation to- "terrorist acts committed by followers of some religions..." Jews are not committing terrorist acts in the name of YWH to the point where it provokes the Pontiff to make a global announcement. Jews were not overlooked. They are unrelated to my post.

The point is, we all know the pope was not talking about Christians or Jews. So, who he was talking about was clearly the third Semitic faith. Thus the post is about their relationship to the god of the papacy. This point is the single clear point of my post. Extrapolating it to apply to Jews or any others simply does not work. It is false logic and it is not mine.

So you weren't being circumlocutory about Islam? Was it Wicca you were tiptoeing around?

Circumambulating a topic (logic or otherwise) is something I have never been charged with/asked about before. Nice. However, if you read my post... read it, not read into it... my point is specifically that talking the way the pope did is exactly how one might do so on OPs to avoid offending others. Considering over 3000 of my posts are specifically on islam, jihad, terrorism, etc., circle reasoning to avoid naming a thing is hardly something I am known for.

My point (in last para) was an effort at sarcasm, or literary example. In any event, the point you made is of course correct. Thank you.