Nieuwe paus tegenstander toetreding Turkije tot de EU

[Wreker]

Europe Is Christian, but Turkey's Crescent Moon Shines in its Skies
Church leaders are discussing whether it is right or not to consider Muslim Turkey as part of Europe. Ratzinger says "No," but the "Yes" votes are growing more numerous – and more convincing

by Sandro Magister



ROMA – The Vatican has so far abstained from any official comment on the preliminary go-ahead given on October 6 by the European Commission to negotiations for the possible entry of Turkey into the European Union.

The secretariat of state responds to private inquiries from diplomats that it has no preconceived reasons to oppose a decision by the European Union to admit Turkey, on the condition that the country respect stated democratic norms and guarantee more religious liberty, particularly for the Christian minorities, than is currently the case.

But opinions in the Vatican are clearer than the official position. Some are opposed, and a growing number of others are in favor.


[size=3] RATZINGER'S "NO"[/size]


One source of opposition is a highly authoritative Vatican official: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Ratzinger has recently voiced his opposition on two occasions: in an August 13 interview with "Le Figaro Magazine," and in a speech on September 18 to the pastoral workers of his titular diocese, Velletri, which was published in the Catholic newspaper of the Swiss town of Lugano, "Il Giornale del Popolo."

In both cases, he specified that he was expressing his own opinion, not that of the Holy See.

Ratzinger told Sophie de Ravinel of "Le Figaro Magazine":

"Europe is a cultural continent, not a geographical one. It is its culture that gives it a common identity. The roots that have formed it, that have permitted the formation of this continent, are those of Christianity. [...] In this sense, throughout history Turkey has always represented another continent, in permanent contrast with Europe. There were the wars against the Byzantine empire, the fall of Constantinople, the Balkan wars, and the threat against Vienna and Austria. That is why I think it would be an error to equate the two continents. It would mean a loss of richness, the disappearance of culture for the sake of economic benefits. Turkey, which is considered a secular country but is founded upon Islam, could instead attempt to bring to life a cultural continent together with some neighboring Arab countries, and thus become the protagonist of a culture that would possess its own identity but would also share the great humanistic values that we should all acknowledge. This idea is not incompatible with close and friendly forms of association and collaboration with Europe, and would permit the development of unified strength in opposition to any form of fundamentalism."

In his speech in Velletri, as reported by "Il Giornale del Popolo" and by a dispatch from the news agency ANSA on September 20, he repeated:

"Historically and culturally, Turkey has little in common with Europe; for this reason, it would be a great error to incorporate it into the European Union. It would be better for Turkey to become a bridge between Europe and the Arab world, or to form together with that world its own cultural continent. Europe is not a geographical concept, but a cultural one, formed in a sometimes conflictual historical process centered upon the Christian faith, and it is a matter of fact that the Ottoman empire was always in opposition to Europe. Even though Kemal Ataturk constructed a secular Turkey during the 1920's, the country remains the nucleus of the old Ottoman empire; it has an Islamic foundation, and is thus very different from Europe, which is a collection of secular states with Christian foundations, although today these countries seem to deny this without justification. Thus the entry of Turkey into the EU would be anti-historical."

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/d...id=19629&eng=y

[Wreker]

Vatican’s Ties With Islam
Amir Taheri While officially there is no election campaign in choosing a successor to Pope John Paul II, the half a dozen cardinals in line for the job are engaged in their version of electioneering. Some have taken to the media like duck to water, heightening their profile through TV and radio interviews. Others have relied on friends to keep their miters in the ring.

One issue that is dominating the debate about the succession is the attitude that the next pope, leader of the world’s estimated one billion Catholics, should adopt toward Islam.

For centuries the Catholic Church either tried to ignore Islam or clung to medieval prejudices borne out of misunderstanding or ignorance. By the middle of the last century, however, the Vatican, the state expression of the Catholic Church, felt obliged to develop a policy toward Islam if only to organize its relations with a growing number of Muslim countries. At the start of the last century there were just six more or less independent Muslim states. By the year 2000 that number had grown to 53.

The first pope to put relations with Islam on the agenda was Paul VI who initiated the first inter-faith dialogue. The idea was that Christianity and Islam must find a modus vivendi as two neighboring civilizations. Much of the dialogue, however, consisted of diplomatic exchanges and bland assertions of common values. The relationship remained distant and cold; it was as if the two sides were merely seizing each other up.

By the time of Paul VI’s passing the world had changed. The decolonization process had produced dozens of new Muslim states while a growing flow of Muslim immigrants into Europe altered the religious composition of the continent.

When John Paul II became pope, Islam was no longer a neighboring civilization of Europe but a significant and growing presence within the continent.

The history of the past three to four decades is one of intense competition between Islam and Christianity, especially the Catholic version, for converts. The last three decades of the 20th century witnessed major successes for Islam in winning converts, especially in black Africa where at least 12 nations that had been mainly Christian or animist were largely islamicized through conversions.

In 1980, John Paul II ordered a review of relations with Islam.

He faced two divergent views.

One belonged to cardinals who claimed that there was no need for a theological dialogue with Islam or, any other faiths for that matter, and that relations should remain confined to political and diplomatic domains.

That view was backed by the argument that Christianity, as the ultimate truth had nothing to learn from other religions. Another claim was that Islam, having concluded that the Shariah contained the ultimate answer to all issues, no longer had an evolving theology that could help Christian theology grow stronger by challenging it.

The second view belonged to those who wanted a polite, but ultimately inconsequential, dialogue as a matter of political expediency rather than theological interest.

The issue was further complicated because Islam does not have church-like structures and does not recognize a pope-like figure. Thus it was not clear who the pope should dialogue with. The easy way out for the Vatican, being a state and a member of the United Nations, was to pursue the dialogue through diplomatic relations with Muslim states.

In Islam, however, contrary to what some in the West imagine, the state is not the personification of religion. Even when the state bears the label “Islamic”, as is the case in the Islamic republics of Mauritania, Iran and Pakistan, for example, society as a whole does not seek its religious guidance from government officials. To complicate matters further, in some Muslim countries, the most active Islamic elements are in opposition to the state.

John Paul II insisted on developing a third position. This was based on the idea of a grand alliance between the Catholic Church and Islam to oppose both the Communist bloc led by the USSR and the growing secularization of life in the world. He regarded Islam and Catholicism as objective allies because while the former fought against the Red Army in Afghanistan, the latter took on the Soviet “evil empire” in Central and Eastern Europe. In Western Europe, the heartland of Catholicism, the pope saw Islam as an ally on such issues as homosexual “marriages”, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and the status of women.

John Paul II pursued his quest for alliance with Islam in 1986 by becoming the first pope to visit a Muslim country. During that visit to Morocco he had this to say: “We believe in the same God, the one and the only God, who created the world and brought its creatures to perfection.”

In 2001 John Paul II visited Damascus and became the first pope to pray in a mosque. He also issued a formal apology for what he termed the misdeeds of Christendom toward Islam, including the Crusades and colonialism.

That strategy was not an easy sell to many Catholics. Islam and Christianity are the only two major religions that wish to convert the whole of mankind. For them to set their 1400 year-old competition for converts aside in the name of fighting the common enemies of secularism and atheism is not an easy option.

Politically, John Paul II’s strategy has scored a number of victories. The Vatican has united with a number of Muslim states, notably Iran and the Sudan, to block the extension of the secular concept of human rights in several instances.

In the Beijing conference on women, for example, Vatican and the Islamic bloc managed to prevent measures that would have given women equal rights with men.

John Paul II’s charisma was such that few dared challenge his strategy. Now that he is no longer there, however, his strategy will be subjected to scrutiny within the Catholic Church.

One critic is Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, a leading candidate for papacy. Ratzinger believes that John Paul II’s strategy of alliance with Islam has put the Vatican not on the side of the Muslim peoples but on the side of despotic regimes that dominate the Muslim world. Ratzinger sees relations between Islam and Catholicism as one of competition over the truth.

Ratzinger suggests an alternative strategy under which the Catholic Church would focus on the consolidation of its position in its traditional strongholds in Europe and the American Continent. In that context Ratzinger has publicly opposed the admission of Turkey into the European Union.

Ratzinger regards a formal dialogue with Islam as a handicap for the Catholic Church because it would assume a measure of equality between the two faiths, signaling to people, especially in Europe, that they can shop around for religion. Ratzinger’s strategy enjoys much support in the College of Cardinals. But it also has critics.

Cardinal Angel Scola, the archbishop of Venice and another contender for John Paul II’s succession, regards Ratzinger’s strategy as “defensive” and based on the West’s traditional fears about Islam. Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the archbishop of Westminster, goes further and described dialogue with Islam as “an urgent need”.

“We must find interlocutors in all Muslim countries,” he says. “Christianity and Islam have a shared responsibility in defending world peace.”

Both Scola and O’Connor believe that John Paul II’s public opposition to the war in Iraq helped prevent a “clash of civilizations”.

An even more ardent advocate of dialogue with Islam is Cardinal Francis Arinze, also a leading candidate for John Paul II’s succession. A Nigerian, Arinze has direct experience of Islam because more than half of his native country’s population is Muslim.

At a meeting in Rabat, Morocco, several years ago, Arinze told us that he believed Christians had much to learn from “the sincere ardor of Muslims” while Muslims could benefit from the West’s openness to new scientific and political ideas.

Like John Paul II, Arinze believes both Islam and Christianity need a united “anti-secularism” front to protect further erosion in their faith.

“Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea of faith having its say on all issues,” he said. “In Islam, however, religion is still regarded as a legitimate participant in the public debate. We must work together to make this case in the global arena.”

In the next few days we shall know who has won the argument in the Vatican.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sect...=16&m=4&y=2005

[ingenious]

so?

[Wreker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ingenious

so?

Zeer goed nieuws voor Europa!

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=2][size=4][/size][/size][/font][font=Comic Sans MS][size=2][size=4] [size=3][/size] [/size][/size][/font]

[Pietje]

Gezien "zijn" leeftijd , vrees ik voor jou dat "hij" geen tijd genoeg zal hebben om Turkije daadwerkelijk tegen te houden 8)

[Wreker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pietje

Gezien "zijn" leeftijd , vrees ik voor jou dat "hij" geen tijd genoeg zal hebben om Turkije daadwerkelijk tegen te houden 8)

In dit tijdsgewricht is het de juiste man op de juiste plaats.

Een rechtse paus voor een rechts Europa!

[Pietje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Wreker

Een rechtse paus voor ............

Niet moeilijk, alsof linkse geestelijken zo voor het rapen liggen.

[Piet Hein]

Ik ben ook tegen de toetreding van Trukje maar dat een islamtisch land is het laatste van mijn zorgen.

[Wreker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pietje

Niet moeilijk, alsof linkse geestelijken zo voor het rapen liggen.

Ze hebben er nochtans de meest rechtse uitgekozen.

[Pietje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Wreker

Ze hebben er nochtans de meest rechtse uitgekozen.

Tja, kaloten onder mekaar.......

[jules]

ik heb de indruk dat die nieuwe paus over�*l tegen is.
De stakkerd.

[Cosmo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Wreker

Zeer goed nieuws voor Europa!

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=2][size=4][/size][/size][/font][font=Comic Sans MS][size=2][size=4] [size=3][/size] [/size][/size][/font]

Inderdaad goed nieuws.
JP-II had ook al zijn teleurstelling getoond over het feit dat er in de Europese grondwet geen vermelding staat naat de Christelijke oorsprong van Europa. Toen ik hoorde dat de Duitse kardinaal verkozen was legde ik direct de link met de invloed van Turkije in Europa, omdat Turkije gaandeweg de rol van Duitsland als grootste lidstaat zou kunnen overnemen. Nu nog hopen dat de Fransen massaal NEE stemmen bij hun referendum.
Die pausen kennen tenminste hun geschiedenis.

[Wolfgang Meister]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door jules

ik heb de indruk dat die nieuwe paus over�*l tegen is.
De stakkerd.

Niet tegen mij alleszins!

[Pietje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Wolfgang Meister

Niet tegen mij alleszins!

jij bent dan ook lid van zijn fanclub 8)

[debbie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door jules

ik heb de indruk dat die nieuwe paus over�*l tegen is.
De stakkerd.

Ach, met een beetje geluk haalt die 2006 niet eens meer.
Laat ons bidden.

[voicelesscharlie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pietje

Tja, kaloten onder mekaar.......

Ik ben zelk absoluut niet katholiek.
Maar dat vind ik de juiste paus om de tjeven van "linkse kerk" een hak te zetten.

[Pietje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door voicelesscharlie

Ik ben zelk absoluut niet katholiek.
Maar dat vind ik de juiste paus om de tjeven van "linkse kerk" een hak te zetten.

T'is de juiste paus om om de volledige rkk een hak te zetten. Of denk je dat "hij" nog veel volk gaat vinden die zijn oeroude en achterhaalde principes gaat slikken ???

[voicelesscharlie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pietje

T'is de juiste paus om om de volledige rkk een hak te zetten. Of denk je dat "hij" nog veel volk gaat vinden die zijn oeroude en achterhaalde principes gaat slikken ???

Deze paus heeft nog niets ondernomen.
Hoe weet je dan dat zijn principes oeroud zijn.
Bovendien is niet alles wat oeroud is daarom primitief.
Ik vind dat geleuter over condooms trouwens uiterst simplistisch.
Als de paus tegen condooms is .So what.
Men is nog altijd vrij om die al of niet te gebruiken.
Of zijn ze in Africa daar te dom voor mss om daar vrij over te beslissen?

[Andro]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door voicelesscharlie

Ik vind dat geleuter over condooms trouwens uiterst simplistisch.
Als de paus tegen condooms is .So what.
Men is nog altijd vrij om die al of niet te gebruiken.
Of zijn ze in Africa daar te dom voor mss om daar vrij over te beslissen?

Bullshit!

In veel Afrikaanse landen is het woord van de kerk WET. Priesters en bisschoppen bepalen de geldende moraal. Hun afwijzing van het condoomgebruik en de daaraangekoppelde leer dat gebruik daarvan een zonde is en daarom schadelijke voor de zieleheil, is voor veel Afrikanen het argument om geen condooms te gebruiken.
Wat de rol van de kerk helemaal verachtelijk maakt is dat de katholieke kerk willens en wetens leugens verspreid over het effect van condoomgebruik op de verspreiding van AIDS. Het officiele standpunt van het Vaticaan is dat condooms het HIV-virus niet tegenhouden. Dat is wetenschappelijk aantoonbaar een leugen. De Katholieke kerk is op die manier dus niet alleen via haar verwerpelijke leer maar ook via haar leugenachtige daden in hoge mate medeverantwoordelijke voor deze AIDS-epidemie.

[voicelesscharlie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Andromeda1968

Bullshit!

In veel Afrikaanse landen is het woord van de kerk WET. Priesters en bisschoppen bepalen de geldende moraal. Hun afwijzing van het condoomgebruik en de daaraangekoppelde leer dat gebruik daarvan een zonde is en daarom schadelijke voor de zieleheil, is voor veel Afrikanen het argument om geen condooms te gebruiken.
Wat de rol van de kerk helemaal verachtelijk maakt is dat de katholieke kerk willens en wetens leugens verspreid over het effect van condoomgebruik op de verspreiding van AIDS. Het officiele standpunt van het Vaticaan is dat condooms het HIV-virus niet tegenhouden. Dat is wetenschappelijk aantoonbaar een leugen. De Katholieke kerk is op die manier dus niet alleen via haar verwerpelijke leer maar ook via haar leugenachtige daden in hoge mate medeverantwoordelijke voor deze AIDS-epidemie.

De essentie is dat God de mens vrij laat om zijn wil al of niet na te leven.
Indien men de zwarten dus zou verplichten om condooms te gebruiken zou dat even verwerpelijk zijn.
De zwarten beslissen dus zelf over hun zieleheil.
Dat is niet de schuld van de kerk.
(PS.Ik ben NIET katholiek maar sommige theologische standpunten van hen kan ik waarderen).