Two Catholic bishops in Bavaria have very different things to say about recent Islamic jihad attacks in Europe. Actually, the first says almost nothing — nice-sounding words come out of his mouth, but without any discernible meaning. Full of pap and pabulum, but signifying nothing.
The second bishop is quite refreshing, however. As a consequence, it seems likely that Comrade Pope Francis will soon discipline him for his blasphemies against universal diversity and inclusion.
Many thanks to Nash Montana for translating this material from Politically Incorrect, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling the video:
How bishops express themselves concerning Islamic terror
The bishop of Würzburg, Friedhelm Hoffmann [left in the photo] posed in front of an upside down crucifix when he was asked his opinion about the Allahu Akhbar Axe Attack in his diocese. “Yes, today came the big surprise that yesterday such an attack could happen against tourists on that train to Würzburg,” he said, and returned with a rhetorical question: “What can one say to that?” One doesn’t, after all, know anything about the background of the young man, who possibly could have been sick before the police shot him.
His episcopal colleague from Passau, Stefan Oster [right in the photo] on July 15th, after the attack in Nice, took a stand concerning Islamic terror. His emphatic speech was then written about in an astonished WAZ [Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung]:
This has not been seen in this form: A bishop admonishes Muslims to stand up against terror in the name of Islam.
In an unusually sharp tone the Catholic bishop from Passau, Stefan Oster, accused Muslims of failure. Oster was referring to the worldwide terror attacks in the name of Islam. According to Oster, after attacks like the one in Nice, a cohesive reaction from Muslims was barely detected.
“When at last will come the collective, the great unified outcry of all peaceful Muslims of the world authentically devoted to their God, that they do not want to let their religion be abused any longer in the name of terror?” Oster wrote on his webpage. And he demanded: “Finally stand up together against this insanity!”
Stefan Oster (51) is generally placed in the conservative wing of the German Bishops’ Conference. Just a short time ago he denounced the declining influence of the Catholic church in Germany in his book God without People, and he made that decline responsible for deficits within the church.
In his commentary on his website Oster warned that the religious and political leaders of Islam must band together in order to explain to the world that Islam and terrorism are not compatible. That he is missing an honest acknowledgment for peace and religious freedom, and he demanded an end to the persecution of religious minorities in Muslim-dominated countries.
Instead of Muslims, it is Christians and Western democracies who point out that there is also a peaceful Islam, one that is compatible with “basic respect of the dignity of every person, no matter what race, gender, religion, skin color, heritage and sexual orientation.”
But the less Muslims stand up against violence in the name of religion, the more they allow it happen that “daily, hourly, the suspicion is supported that Islam is a religion that wants to instill fear into the world and does not bring peace!” Oster writes. He also suspects possible motives behind the reticence that is so obvious to him: “Are they heard and seen of so little because they are afraid? Or because they are badly organized? Or is there another reason?”
Here is the link to Bishop Oster’s website, where he asks the right questions.
Boat captain Woelki [Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, Archbishop of Cologne] hasn’t been heard from yet since Nice and Würzburg.
Video transcript:
| 0:05 | How did you experience yesterday evening? How do you classify that? | |
| 0:08 | Yes, today came the big surprise that yesterday | |
| 0:14 | such an attack could happen against tourists on that train to Wurzburg. | |
| 0:20 | One is at the moment speechless that a young man 17 years old | |
| 0:25 | has attacked people with an axe and a knife | |
| 0:30 | and seriously injured them… what can one say to that? | |
| 0:34 | It is an incomprehensible act. We don’t know the background; | |
| 0:39 | we don’t know exactly what was going on with that young man. | |
| 0:43 | What we do know is that the police then shot him dead, | |
| 0:48 | and so now one would have to at least try to see how | |
| 0:53 | we can clarify this horrible background. | |
| 0:57 | I can only tell the injured and those affected, | |
| 1:02 | that I also will pray for them, of course, and that for our part | |
| 1:08 | we will try in every way to be there for these people, | |
| 1:12 | who are probably traumatized. | |
| 1:16 | But I also want to thank all of those who | |
| 1:20 | intervened last night, who helped, | |
| 1:25 | because it also isn’t easy for the people, the police, for the emergency care workers | |
| 1:30 | to deal with these kinds of difficult situations. | |
| 1:35 | And then I think we must not succumb to the danger | |
| 1:40 | so that we now throw all foreign asylum seekers into one pot | |
| 1:46 | and say they are all a danger to us. | |
| 1:50 | We have to differentiate what actually led to such an attack, | |
| 1:54 | and whether it stands within a larger context, | |
| 1:57 | or if it was a single incident, the act of a sick person, | |
| 2:01 | and we have to — in the treatment of those who come to us without their parents — | |
| 2:07 | maybe increase, have to see that we can chaperone them more, | |
| 2:12 | and to integrate them, and that we help them to overcome | |
| 2:16 | their own trauma in that regard. |
The first Bishop has a painting in his room with a cross turned upside down (ie. Satanic).
A remarkable coincidence of course. 😉
astuga, how familiar are you with Christian iconography? The cross turned upside down is a symbol for Saint Peter. Any moderately informed Christian could tell you that.
Whatever evil the fellow may do, it has nothing to do with Peter’s Cross. Though the ‘modern’ rendering looks like something a child would do. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_on_White
Perfect example of the Naked Emperor syndrome in ‘modern’ ‘art’.
It may well represent St Peter’s cross, but the upside down cross is also a symbol known to be used by Satanists, even if the Bishop is unaware. So he may be as much in the dark about his art works as what happened on the train. Equally worrying from a church leader.
When the Apostle Peter was scheduled for death in Rome, he said that he was unworthy to die in the manner in his Savior had died (regular crucifixion). Therefore, he was crucified upside-down.
This is the origin of the St. Peter’s cross.
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter if “satanists” take Christian iconography for their own use. That doesn’t mean Christians should therefore stop using it. No, he’s not “in the dark” about iconography, though he may be wrong about other things. There is some value in discernment.
The LGBTQWERTY rainbow flag is a intentional rip off from Genesis and God’s promise that “the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.” It is now impossible for Christians to use the traditional rainbow symbolism without evoking the Left’s anti-Christian rebranding.
I don’t know many Christians who would use an upside down cross as a symbol of faith. Look a bit strange on a chain around the neck. But it would be interesting to know more about that painting, who the artist was as whether the inverted cross had meaning outside of what the cleric realizes.
It is the broken cross that is a satanic sign. The so-called ‘ peace ‘ ‘ ban the bomb’ sign.
That’s just one of them. Try Googling “satanic symbols”, might surprise you.
“how familiar are you with Christian iconography”
I would say average, but obviously not good enough. 😉
As an Atheist Islam takes allmost all my attention nowadays.
But anyway, it fits the Bishop never the less.
I rewrote part and it still appears to be accurate:
But the less Muslims stand up against violence in the name of religion, the more they allow it happen that “daily, hourly, over the decades, centuries and millennium the suspicion is supported that Islam is a religion that wants to instill fear into the world and does not bring peace!”
Maybe someone should show it to him.
Suspicion? It is said out aloud in all Islamic teachings that fear must be instilled into the heart of the Kuffar, via smiting his neck.
I just wonder what bishops will think about this one:
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/
Asking Muslims to stand up against jihad terrorism is asking Muslims to stand up against Islam. That’s why no Muslims are fighting against jihad terrorism.
If he’s going to ask them to stand up against Islam, it seems like the most effective way to do that would be to invite them to convert to Christianity. But they’re much less likely to do that when they can’t get protection against the bloodthirsty apostate-killing, self appointed sharia-enforcing Muslims.
This part of his speech *could have been* rhetorical, setting up a later statement, one which has yet to be delivered.
All Muslims are extremely racist and jehadists to boot.
This is exactly correct.
They may not act on it, and they may not say it aloud, but the vast majority of the Ummah know full well that the Quran states the fastest, most genuine ticket to paradise is slaughtering the infidel.
Taking a stand against that would risk their own entrance into paradise. Thus, this will never happen en masse.
Bishop #2 is better but he still seems to believe that the violence has nothing to do with Islam.
Oswald
I think you are missing the subtlety of Bishop Oster:
‘But the less Muslims stand up against violence in the name of religion, the more they allow it [to] happen that “daily, hourly, the suspicion is supported that Islam is a religion that wants to instill fear into the world and does not bring peace!” Oster writes. He also suspects possible motives behind the reticence that is so obvious to him: “Are they heard and seen of so little because they are afraid? Or because they are badly organized? Or is there another reason?” ‘
By posing the third question he is clearly implying that the first and second of his questions are rhetorical and that the real motive for the reticence of Muslims in not denouncing Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims in Nice, Orlando, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Bataclan, Fort Hood, Toulouse ad infinitum is that Muslims variously: tacitly, covertly or overtly actually support them.
There is no other cogent explanation for the absence of massive, emphatic denunciation of these atrocities by Muslim leaders. Imagine if the people who had perpetrated the atrocities in the places I have listed were Sikhs? Every Sikh religious and civic leader, every Sikh organization and the Sikh community at large would loudly, unambiguously and sincerely denounce the perpetrators as reprehensible murderers and thoroughly disavow their actions.
What happens with the Muslim community is quite different: their leadership laments that these atrocities make life harder for them, stoking “Islamophobia”. They have the breathtaking gall to cast themselves as the real victims! James Delingpole has sardonically written of this bizarre phenomenon in the past few days regarding Nice. Along the lines of “You may well think that the 84 dead in Nice (and the 27 still in critical condition) and their families are the victims, but no, you are wrong: the real victims of Nice are the Muslims in London and elsewhere who complain that people on the street now look at them askance” The poor dears!
I live for the day when a BBC reporter, upon hearing this absurd claim to victimhood, responds to the complainant: “Are you out of your mind?! Scores of innocent people have just been mown down dead and YOU are complaining that you have been, or claim to have been, looked at with a degree of hostility by a passersby on the street!”
I am trying to find the Quran passage where the Prophet tells Muslims to take advice from Christian clergy. Meanwhile, thank you Dymphna, for explaining half the symbology in this video: that the upside-down cross on the blackboard is Saint Peter’s cross (I didn’t know that). But the other half of the symbology remains a mystery: the NATO emblem on the cabinet door, inside an asymmetrical carved-groove border. What’s *that* all about?
http://i1.wp.com/www.ddesignerr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/201.jpg?resize=319%2C269
He may not be perfect, but it is heartening to see that the better of the two is also the younger.
I thought of that, too.
Me too !
There’s no fool like an old fool.
Exactly.
Yes, the younger priest seems less indoctrinated by political correctness. He probably was curbing how much he said. Reminds me of sitcoms years ago that had the kids turn out conservative, to the horror of their liberal parents. Think of when pc fades from the scene as McCarthyism eventually did (though ironically most of McCarthy’s charges turned out to be true). When the policing of thought & opinion is gone there’ll be zero stigma about confronting Islamic jihad in the West. It’ll become a straight-up problem of stopping the attacks, & thus the attackers, which will mean combing through the ‘community’ that provides said attackers. We’ll do it to guarantee public safety. Then we’ll discover it’s the Islamic NGO’s and mosques that do much of the indoctrination & ‘charity’ fundraising. Now we spend half our time in discourse considering our opinions, reframing & regulating, parsing every word. So much energy & inquiry is wasted putting ourselves in compliance with our cultural Marxist masters that filter & control speech across the West. And nothing much will happen until pc is purged from the public square. Discourse can make sudden turns when a tipping point is finally reached.
Last time I was in Italy it occurred to me the Catholic churches are no longer churches but museums.
Yet many close, annoyingly, between around noon and 4pm, when tourists might like to visit (and drop something in the box- I do).
In many cases they close the churches just to prevent theft.
We are on the threshold of civil war: Matthew 10.34-36:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
This is metaphorical though: it’s about disagreement between those following Jesus and those not doing so, rather than physical war. Jesus so often spoke in metaphors, why not in this case. One hint is “the daughter against her mother” – that’s not about physical battles but religious disagreement.
If we start seeing calls to some kind of Christian ‘jihad’ in the words of Jesus, our religion and culture is not superior (I am only a cultural Christian, appreciating that Jesus was a great philosopher).
Note: I don’t mean we shouldn’t defend ourselves, but Jesus was certainly not saying go out and start physical fights.
With all due respect, this passage is devoid of any sense of Christianity, either religious or cultural:
“If we start seeing calls to some kind of Christian ‘jihad’ in the words of Jesus, our religion and culture is not superior (I am only a cultural Christian, appreciating that Jesus was a great philosopher).”
As a orthodox, “old faith” Catholic, I can’t conceive of this POV. The history of Christians and Christendom against the aggressive, barbaric, satanic faith of Islam is one of constant battle (mostly defensive).
This is and has always been a war from the moment Mohammed waged war on the Arabian peninsula. And this war will not end peacefully. Negotiations and “cultural exchanges” will not end this war. One side will win, the other will be destroyed.
And it’s clear to me what side I’m fighting for.
Bishop Oster seems like an interesting young man and worth googling. He’s a dogmatic theologian who (literally) juggles.
Vatican’s retired chief exorcist (Pe. Amorth), said that these atacks are demoniac
http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/parola-prete-esorcista-c-demonio-dietro-lisis-1133511.html
“Instead of Muslims, it is Christians and Western democracies who point out that there is also a peaceful Islam, one that is compatible with “basic respect of the dignity of every person, no matter what race, gender, religion, skin color, heritage and sexual orientation.”
The bishop may claim that to be the case, but that doesn’t make it so. Studies show widespread support for sharia in the Muslim old and that system does not comport with hs “basic respect” remark. Though different than the milquetoast bishop’s statement, his statement still willfully ignores Islams basic incompatibility with Western values.