The Humanism of|
John Paul II
With a Kiss, Like Judas
Would any Pope - any Pope before the conciliar modernists - ever have conceived of such a blasphemy as to deny Catholic truths through a blatant gesture of kissing the Koran and, by doing so, giving recognition to a false religion? The answer is clearly no! But John Paul II did just this in 1999. The real shocker is that it did not scandalize or incense Catholics everywhere. Such is the papal idolatry of today!
"The Assisi events and other events like them as well as the entire attitude or direction which permeates them were forcefully condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his letter to the French bishops and archbishops on the Sillonist movement."
If actions mean anything, then Pope John Paul II has sinned gravely and given immeasurable scandal by kissing the Koran back on May 14, 1999. Yes, that's right. If you haven't heard about it yet, make sure you're seated. The Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church kissed the "holy book" of a false religion, one that trashes Christians, blasphemes against Our Lord, and dishonors Our Lady (by denying her the rightful title "Mother of God."). That's the Muslim Koran.
Now, when the news about this shameful incident first broke, many of the Neo-Catholics didn't believe it, rejecting it as hearsay or just fake reports of people trying to bash the Pope. But then came the photographic proof! We have reproduced it here above for your verification, to prove it really did happen.
Even with this proof, there were still some Neo-Catholics disputing it. "This could have been a book of the Gospels," they insisted. But then came a real shocker: the Catholic news agencies that reported the incident themselves claimed it was the Koran! It happened at some meeting with Muslims.
So John Paul kissed the Koran. With this kiss - the same means Judas used to betray our Lord - the Pope, besides betraying our Lord in such a heinous manner, also caused immense scandal harming the entire Catholic world. Kissing the Koran was:
- a slap in the face for the many Catholic martyrs who died at the hands of Muslims for refusing to compromise their Faith
- a slap in the face for those many Christians currently imprisoned, tortured, or persecuted at the hands of Muslims right now; they were waiting for the Pope to support them or at least to confirm them in their fight-instead they saw the Pope bow to the infidels!
- a weakening of the Church's missionary mandate
- an unmistakably indifferentist sign for all to see
- the politically-correct thing to do, no doubt, but
- a blasphemous, idolatrous, morally evil thing to do
How many souls have been affected by this, only God knows. But it happened. Again I must emphasize that I take no pleasure in criticizing the Pope, but I have no other choice. Let us take heed, therefore, to pray much for the Pope. His eternal salvation is at stake, and, more importantly, the eternal salvation of innumerable souls who look to the Pope as a man of God.
When I first heard of the news that the Pope had kissed the Koran, I believed it right away. Why? Because it made sense. I mean, it fit right into everything else in matters "ecumenical" that the Pope had done. Though shocked, I wasn't really surprised, because I could very well picture John Paul II to have done this. Sad, I know, but that's why I reacted the way I did.
The constant denial of the Neo-Catholics that John Paul II really kissed the Koran proved one thing - that, if it really happened, they were conceding that it was despicable. That was a good sign. But, mind you, there were actually Neo-Catholics out there who didn't have a problem with what the Pope did! It is absolutely appalling. One can only pray and fast for such people.
But what would their justification be for such an act? I've come up with three answers people might use to rationalize and defend the Pope's kissing of the Koran:
- "The Pope probably just though this was a Christian book, like a book of the Gospels" ("ignorance" view)
- "He was trying to be nice and courteous and not offend their sensibilities" ("political correctness" view)
- "The Pope is prudent. He was acting diplomatically. He was paving the way for conversions" ("diplomacy" view)
Let me answer each of these in turn.
First, before I kiss a book publicly - any book - I make sure that I know what I'm kissing! Besides, why would a Muslim hand the Pope a book of the Gospels to kiss? It would be entirely absurd.
Regarding the second option: political correctness is a no-no. We're Catholic. We don't care what the world thinks. We have the Gospel to preach. We have sin to avoid and virtue to engage in. Most of all, we have God to serve and His Commandments to observe. And let me remind everyone here: God gave us 10 Commandments, not 10 Suggestions. So this option, too, goes out the window. It just doesn't wash.
The third possible response is ludicrous. First, even if the Pope had the hidden intention of getting Muslims to look at Christianity and possibly convert (and that's a big "if"!), he is nevertheless prohibited from doing so in a sinful way. "The end does not justify the means." Though this would be a noble end, he cannot use sinful means to accomplish that end.
Secondly, truth insists that God is the Supreme Being and must be the first we need to worry about: "I am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me" (Exodus 20:2-3). "Strange gods" do not always come in the form of buddhas or fortune-tellers or witchdoctors (though John Paul II seems to have no problem with that, either; see Assisi); "strange gods" refers to anything that puts itself between use and our Triune God and receives the honor due Him. That can be money, sex, power, or -- diplomacy. We do not worship diplomacy; we worship God. So the third option doesn't wash, either.
But let's talk a bit more about diplomacy. I've always thought that the refusal to kiss (venerate) an anti-Catholic object, such as the "holy books" of false religions, when faced with torture and death as the only alternative, is an act of martyrdom. And so it is. Now, since martyrdom is the greatest act a person can engage in (cf. St. John 15:13), where does that leave indifferentist "diplomacy"? Only as its direct opposite, i.e. the most abominable thing a man can do.
While in the post-Vatican II church diplomacy may be a great thing, I do not believe this has been the case in the 1958 years before. How diplomatic was Jesus when He said, "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34)? So much for the humanistic and skewed "peace" that is being promoted by such idolatrous gatherings as the scandals of Assisi in 1986 and 2002.
What's especially noteworthy here is what our Lord said just two verses before: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before My Father Who is in Heaven. But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father Who is in Heaven" (St. Matthew 10:32-33). Was Jesus Christ preached and confessed before the idolaters and witchdoctors of the world in Assisi? Or was He made to look unimportant before them? We all know the answer to that one….. I mean, if anything, these false religions heard about Jesus in the "Well, that's what we believe" sort of way. The Assisi meetings were dominated by a false respect, by a respect not just for the misled souls who attended, but by a respect for their errors. And THAT is evil and unacceptable.
What was promoted at Assisi was not true, authentic peace, which is only Christian. What was truly being promoted was a fake, artificial "peace" that comes not from Christ but from Belial!
Alas, the Gospel of Diplomacy and Political Correctness has dominated the Church since 1958, instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No peace is true peace if it comes not from Christ! The only lasting and true peace will not come until Christ reigns as the Lord of all Nations, for He is Christ THE KING. All that can be achieved by such masonic "interreligious" gatherings is, at best, a TRUCE, but no peace.
I cannot help but ponder the terrifying words of the prophet Jeremias, which seem as applicable to today as they did back when the prophet wrote:
"From the prophet even to the priest, all are guilty of deceit. And they healed the breach of the daughter of my people disgracefully, saying: Peace, peace: and there was no peace. They were confounded, because they committed abomination: yea, rather they were not confounded with confusion, and they knew not how to blush: wherefore they shall fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall fall down, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: We will not walk." (Jeremias 6:13-16)
I think the parallel between the situation back when St. Jeremias spoke and our situation now is frightening, especially when you read the rest of this sixth chapter. But you draw your own conclusions.
The Assisi events and other events like them as well as the entire attitude or direction which permeates them were forcefully condemned by Pope St. Pius X in his letter to the French bishops and archbishops on the Sillonist movement. It is necessary to quote at length. Again, the parallels to today are startling:
". . . the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City.....Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on "the ground of practical realities" where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, "to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions." And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one's religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? . . . We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness . . . can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion . . . more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind." And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
(St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25, 1910)
It seems these words could have been addressed to John Paul II personally, with only few minor modifications.
Needless to say, peace in no wise ensued after the first Assisi meeting. Instead, war and terror: Yugoslavia, the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Chechnya - you name it. What are we to expect now that this abomination has occurred a second time?
Again, we will do well to heed the warnings of St. Jeremias the Prophet:
"Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what great things I will do to them. Hear, O earth: Behold I will bring evils upon this people, the fruits of their own thoughts: because they have not heard my words, and they have cast away my law . . . Behold I will bring destruction upon this people, by which fathers and sons together shall fall, neighbour and kinsman shall perish. Thus saith the Lord: Behold a people cometh from the land of the north, and a great nation shall rise up from the ends of the earth. They shall lay hold on arrow and shield: they are cruel, and will have no mercy. Their voice shall roar like the sea: and they shall mount upon horses, prepared as men for war, against thee, O daughter of Sion." (Jeremias 6:18-19,21-23)
Might this refer to the Muslims, the Mohammedans? In the past, as history shows, God has used the Arab infidels to punish His people for grave wrongdoing. There is no reason to suppose He will not do so again, especially when keeping in mind the atrocious events of September 11, 2001, which were clearly intended to be only a start.
There is only one way there will be true and lasting peace in this world: Christ must be made King in every nation, and Russia must be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope and the bishops in union with him. All other efforts will fail.
Editor's Note: So many of the post-conciliar bishops today refer to those clinging to the true Roman Catholic traditions that were in vogue for 2000 years prior to the reforms of Vatican II as 'fossils,' 'dinosaurs,' 'old folks who will die off soon.' We beg to differ and offer as proof the youthful wisdom and enthusiasm of the younger generation in the Traditional Insights of Mario Derksen who exemplifies the thinking of many more young men and women today who realize the new thinking of the post-conciliar church does not add up to true Catholic teaching. Thus they long for those traditions so tried and true. His insight shows great promise, optimism and hope for the future of Holy Mother Church.
Note: [bold, brackets and italicized words used for emphasis]
For past columns by Mario Derksen, see Archives for www.DailyCatholic.org/2002mdi.htm
May 24-26, 2002
volume 13, no. 96
Mario Derksen's young and refreshing TRADITIONAL INSIGHTS