Why doesn’t the Pope go to Syria?
A good opportunity for “Muslim-Christian dialogue”:
Let’s put the pope’s Muslim-Christian “dialogue” policy to the test. Here’s the perfect destination for the next papal trip: Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State’s caliphate.
Last Sunday, Pope Francis called for the release of Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim (the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Aleppo), Boulos Yazigi (the Greek Orthodox bishop of Aleppo), and Italian Jesuit priest Paolo Dall’Oglio, who — if they are still alive — have all been held captive for two years now by Islamic jihadists in Syria. Said the pope:
I hope for a renewed commitment by the competent local and international authorities, so that these, our brothers, will soon be restored to freedom.
He must know that the “competent local and international authorities,” if there are any, aren’t going to do a thing to free these clerics.
If the pope wants it done right, he is going to have to do it himself – and in doing so, he can prove the value of the Church’s insistence and dependence upon “Muslim-Christian dialogue.”
The pope should go to Raqqa and appeal personally to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s Caliph Ibrahim, for the release of Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio. Pope Francis has said that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” and he has assiduously called for “dialogue” and denounced violence in virtually every situation. So he should go there, and display the correctness of his recommendations by initiating an in-person “dialogue” with the caliph or other appropriate Islamic State representatives, during which he can explain to them how they are misunderstanding the Qur’an and Islam.
This will fix everything: not only will the Islamic State forthwith release the bishops and the priest, but they will lay down their arms, and distribute flowers to all the children. The power of “dialogue” over all forms of violence will be abundantly established before the eyes of a world struck with awe, yet again, at the wisdom of this pope and the compelling power of his humble, saintly personality.
As he prepares for this “dialogue” trip, however, the pope may face resistance from his own bishops.
Robert McManus, the bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, two years ago (ironically not long before Ibrahim, Yazigi, and Dall’Oglio were abducted) summed up the prevailing view of the U.S. Catholic bishops:
Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.
So what is Pope Francis doing even talking about these abducted clerics? He should keep quiet about such matters, so as to preserve the “dialogue.” Will Bishop McManus and the other American bishops, recognizing the dignity but also the limitations of his positions, humbly but unmistakably call him on the carpet and “oppose him to his face, because he stood condemned,” as St. Paul did to Francis’ first predecessor, St. Peter (Galatians 2:11)?
Of course they will say nothing, and Pope Francis will not go to Raqqa, because in both cases the concerned parties probably know full well that the sham of the “dialogue” policy would be exposed to the world.
The contemporary Catholic Church, especially in the West, has confused niceness with charity.
It may be nice to avoid unpleasant matters and to enjoy delicious hummus and pita down at the mosque, but it is not charitable to confirm Muslims in their bullying and supremacism by kowtowing to their wishes.
It is not charitable to keep silent about the atrocities they commit in the name of their religion and in accord with its teachings….
Read the rest here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Ex-Soviet army officer who converted to Islam guilty on jihad terror charges
“We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms”
Instead of gathering the world to fight non-existent Global Warming, he should be gathering the world to stop genocide. While the intentions for priests release is noble, I can think of tens of thousands of women and girls held hostage as deserving if not more deserving of release. If the priests were let go and nobody else, would the Pope just go back to Global Warming?
with all due respect, the pope is utterly out of touch with reality. but let’s go on his path, and examine the statement that a “correct reading” of mohammedan scripture shows it to be completely non-violent. even if that tidbit was true, and a semi-intelligent reader of the koran, hadith, and islamic jurisprudence such as “reliance of the traveller” knows it’s total BS, perhaps a bit of Christian scripture might help, such as knowing a tree by it’s fruit. FGM is non-violent? beating your wife? stoning adulteresses (rape victims)? throwing gays off “high places”? cutting hands off thieves? REALLY? is having a set procedural waiting time before a pre-pubescent “woman”, once divorced, can remarry non-violent? or perhaps the RCC is ready to overlook pedophilia at home AND abroad. without a single act of jihad, the violence and perversions visited on the practitioners of mohammedanism itself, not to mention infidels, shows the pope to be delusional or a bald-faced liar. these are daily spiritual practices, not terrorism, but oh my, they are very violent indeed.
you can not have “dialogue” between mutually exclusive realities anyway. mohammedans will kill you for saying that Jesus is the Son of G-d. and many a true Christian has died because they can not “dialogue” over the main tenets of Christian faith. if you do believe, really believe, it is not negotiable, and they have died horrible deaths for refusal to compromise. they now wait under the altar with the other martyrs of Christian faith until their numbers are complete, at which time, their blood will be avenged by the Lord Himself.
i daresay we can be quite confident this pope wouldn’t be caught dead (pun intended) in their company.