Although there is no doubt that Nicola Nasser may be a respected senior journalist (although I had not read anything before this article), the amount of disinformation contained within the present text does not make justice of his profession. One is brought to think that Mr Nasser did not even take the pain of reading the whole of the Pope’s discourse - otherwise his inflamed judgement would have been very different.
Among the many inaccuracies, I would simply underline that the Pope has never "apologised" for what he said. Did he ever say that he was "sorry" for the content of the discourse? Not once; and this shows that not even the Pope’s comments in the aftermath of his lecture have been listened to. The media have pumped up with the story of the "apology", but what the Pope said was that he was "sorry that his words had caused so much turmoil". This is something very different from admitting a mistake. So when Mr Nasser affirms "If his slur against Islam was unintentional he should have made a more convincing apology"... well, he did not make one at all so....
Another small point to highlight Mr Nasser’s own knowledge on the matter is the statement about the Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. This has nothing to do with the Pope’s discourse: he was clearly not talking ex cathedra, therefore he was not infallible. The last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra is though to be when Mary’s dogma was proclaimed, some 60 years ago...therefore, it is not clear how "the damage done is snowballing rapidly to vindicate the rejection of the Catholic dogma of Papal Supremacy and infallibility by the Orthodox and other mainstream Christian churches, the secular and liberal intellectuals and the Muslims". Perhaps the Pope has a bad knowledge about Muslim religion, but Mr Nasser has a bad one about catholicism.....
Mr Nasser would have been better stating that he was writing an article because of his own agenda, which we are all very eager to have knowledge of. If this is an attempt at proving that the Catholic church backs Bush’s plans in the middle east - well, I think he is really short of arguments. When he states "The Pope’s attempts to portray his speech as a scholarly and theological matter is not convincing enough to distance the Vatican from being embroiled in political involvement or to shadow the fact that the Pontiff is also a politician and a head of a state, which helped to undermine communism; no one can expect him to be happy or eager to see a U.S. defeat whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or the overall war on terror", I think he should speculate a bit less and bring foward a more convincing argument. The fact that the catholic church has always being against the communism does not imply that it is bound to support US and its politics....why should the Pope be happy in seeing the massacre of the middle-east? Simply because they are not catholic? What should we do, then, of the vibrant condemnation that JP II made of the conflict in Iraq? That does not count of course....
The most striking point is that Mr Nasser is not able to quote a single episode where Benedict has stated in favour of US conduct in the middle-east (of course he can’t, because there have not been such instances). Where is this Catholic stamp then?
The "recent statements by senior Catholic bishops [who] have singled out Lebanon’s Hizbullah and the Palestinian Hamas in names as violent groups under his papacy"? Well, great prrof indeed. And who are thes senior bishops? Strangely enough, no-one is named.
The following sentence is patently false: "His insensitivity could not also be forgiven on the backdrop of the latest anti-Islam cartoons blunder". As a journalist, Mr Nasser must be aware that the Pope has made a sound condemnation no more than 2 or 3 weeks ago of the episode of the vignettes about the Prophet. This fact has gone forgotten, it seems...
The following statement - "The Pope’s reported opposition to Turkey’s membership in the European Union because of its Islamic different culture is cited as another anti-Islam indicator" - is a contradiction of Nasser’s statement that the Pope backs the US - if this were true, the Pope would be a supporter of Turkey’s affiliation to the EU, which is pushed strongly by the US itself.
...and one could carry on....it is impossible to go through all the details of Mr Nasser’s mess.
A friend of mine would label something like that a "bunch of cr*p". I won’t go that far, but I must say that it is a pity to read such an amount of disinformation in one go.
Although there is no doubt that Nicola Nasser may be a respected senior journalist (although I had not read anything before this article), the amount of disinformation contained within the present text does not make justice of his profession. One is brought to think that Mr Nasser did not even take the pain of reading the whole of the Pope’s discourse - otherwise his inflamed judgement would have been very different.
Among the many inaccuracies, I would simply underline that the Pope has never "apologised" for what he said. Did he ever say that he was "sorry" for the content of the discourse? Not once; and this shows that not even the Pope’s comments in the aftermath of his lecture have been listened to. The media have pumped up with the story of the "apology", but what the Pope said was that he was "sorry that his words had caused so much turmoil". This is something very different from admitting a mistake. So when Mr Nasser affirms "If his slur against Islam was unintentional he should have made a more convincing apology"... well, he did not make one at all so....
Another small point to highlight Mr Nasser’s own knowledge on the matter is the statement about the Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. This has nothing to do with the Pope’s discourse: he was clearly not talking ex cathedra, therefore he was not infallible. The last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra is though to be when Mary’s dogma was proclaimed, some 60 years ago...therefore, it is not clear how "the damage done is snowballing rapidly to vindicate the rejection of the Catholic dogma of Papal Supremacy and infallibility by the Orthodox and other mainstream Christian churches, the secular and liberal intellectuals and the Muslims". Perhaps the Pope has a bad knowledge about Muslim religion, but Mr Nasser has a bad one about catholicism.....
Mr Nasser would have been better stating that he was writing an article because of his own agenda, which we are all very eager to have knowledge of. If this is an attempt at proving that the Catholic church backs Bush’s plans in the middle east - well, I think he is really short of arguments. When he states "The Pope’s attempts to portray his speech as a scholarly and theological matter is not convincing enough to distance the Vatican from being embroiled in political involvement or to shadow the fact that the Pontiff is also a politician and a head of a state, which helped to undermine communism; no one can expect him to be happy or eager to see a U.S. defeat whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or the overall war on terror", I think he should speculate a bit less and bring foward a more convincing argument. The fact that the catholic church has always being against the communism does not imply that it is bound to support US and its politics....why should the Pope be happy in seeing the massacre of the middle-east? Simply because they are not catholic? What should we do, then, of the vibrant condemnation that JP II made of the conflict in Iraq? That does not count of course....
The most striking point is that Mr Nasser is not able to quote a single episode where Benedict has stated in favour of US conduct in the middle-east (of course he can’t, because there have not been such instances). Where is this Catholic stamp then?
The "recent statements by senior Catholic bishops [who] have singled out Lebanon’s Hizbullah and the Palestinian Hamas in names as violent groups under his papacy"? Well, great prrof indeed. And who are thes senior bishops? Strangely enough, no-one is named.
The following sentence is patently false: "His insensitivity could not also be forgiven on the backdrop of the latest anti-Islam cartoons blunder". As a journalist, Mr Nasser must be aware that the Pope has made a sound condemnation no more than 2 or 3 weeks ago of the episode of the vignettes about the Prophet. This fact has gone forgotten, it seems...
The following statement - "The Pope’s reported opposition to Turkey’s membership in the European Union because of its Islamic different culture is cited as another anti-Islam indicator" - is a contradiction of Nasser’s statement that the Pope backs the US - if this were true, the Pope would be a supporter of Turkey’s affiliation to the EU, which is pushed strongly by the US itself.
...and one could carry on....it is impossible to go through all the details of Mr Nasser’s mess.
A friend of mine would label something like that a "bunch of cr*p". I won’t go that far, but I must say that it is a pity to read such an amount of disinformation in one go.
Antonia