@a.t.m, Ich bin Ihrer Meinung. Die 10 Gebote und Naturrecht und usw., alle solche Gebiete beziehen sich das die Art und Weise, wie sich Menschen zu einander gesellen, d.h., eine Gesellschaft bilden. Soches Gesellen umfasst mehr als Erlösung. Aber die Art und Weise von Rom, von der Zeit der Völkerwanderung, der Bildung von Völkerstaaten, der Ditakoren vor 70 Jahren, von wer weiß, was für Formen die Technologie ermöglichen wird, schließen die Heilvermittlungsfunktion der Kirche nicht aus. Zur Zeit von Rom oder heute in Rot-China (oder anders in Taiwan, wo ich gelegentlich für eine sino-christliche Zeitschrift veröffentliche) kann die Kirche ihre Aufgabe in verschiedenen Gesellschaften verwirklichen, weil diese Aufgabe von keiner historisch vorbeigehenden Form vollständig aufgenommen und damit fusiert werden kann. Der Heilzustand meiner Seele ist ewig wichtiger als mein wirschaftlicher Stand. Läßt die Kirche dies außer Sicht, hat sie nichts mit "tiefer Ewigkeit" zu tun. <<.>> Persönlich fühle ich mich oft "freier" in einigen Hinsichten in der leichten Diktatur Putins (der mit der Orthodoxen arbeitet und die Homoehe getoppt hat, usw.) als in Deutschland, wo sich in einigen Schulen die Schüler "Gender Mainstreaming" aneignen sollten. Der Massenmord von den Ungeborenen im Land der Holocaust ist kein Ruhmesblatt. Ich vergesse dennoch nicht: In Rußland, wo ich oft seit 1993 Besuche mache, haben die Russen letzten Endes einen Diktator. Keine Gesellschaft kann je mehr sein als das, was die historische Situation erlaubt. Insoweit die Wirtschaft dazu beiträgt, die Güter fürs Leben zu produzieren, steht sie innerhalb des Feldes des Religiösen. (Und das kann gefährlich sein, wie einst der 30-jäjrige Krieg oder heute ISIS beweist. ) Kein Dogma, keine kirchliche Aktivität kann von sich allein feststellen, welche Wirtschaftstheorie richtig ist. (Es ist mir bewußt, daß das herrschende System in Europe leider keynsianischist -- und das ist noch eine andere Theorie. ) Ich frage Sie: Was ist die Aufgabe der Kirche, die immer vorhanden und funktioniernd sein muß, obleich es klar ist, daß die Kirche nach Zeit und Ord erheblich anders aussehen kann und muß?

@a.t.m.: "Alle Lust sucht tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit", sagte jemand, dessen Namen ich nicht nennen will. "Ewigkeit" ist das Ziel. Das ist der Drang nach oben. Überzeugend hat es Ernest Becker in The Denial of Death dargestellt, daß nichts mit mehr Intensität den Menschen im Leben ergreift als die Angst vor dem Tode. Das ist die Furcht vorm Fall nach unten. Resultat = conditio humana: Das Leben besteht daraus und darin, daß Menschen versuchen, sich vor dem Tode durch ein Aufgehen in dem Leben zu retten, so daß die conditio humana verdrängt wird. In der Spannung zwischen "Unten" und "Oben" ist der Spielrahmen, worin Sünde und erhoffte Erlösung, sei sie bloß Ersatz, gesucht werden -- eine Spannung, die die Menschen von selbst nicht auflösen können. Genau hier ist der Ort, wo Gott ins Spiel eintritt. Die Geschichte dieses Eintretens ist die Heilsgeschichte des Menschen, ein Heil, das sich nicht in der und durch die Welt vollzieht. Als Heilsvermittler hat die Kirche, der Vertreter Gottes für uns Menschen in der Welt, DIE Aufgabe der Heilvermittlung, die das Sein ihres Wesens ausmacht. Alle -ismen, die auf Erfüllung in dieser Welt ausgerichtet sind, sind irreführend. Nicht wegen der Rettung der Welt, sondern wegen der Heilung des Menschen für "tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit" hat die Kirche ihre Existenzberechtigung. Alles anders ist letzten Endes (Eschatologie) sekundär. Die "spirituelle Armen" übertrumphen die "wirschaftliche Armen", weil ihre Rettung nichts mehr ist, als besseres weltliches Leben (aber nicht Tod). Die Kirche kann ihrem Telos in allerlei Gescellschaftsformen auf dieser Welt gleichsam ihre Pflicht nachkommen. Versucht man, die Kirche als Lebensform oder Form für das Leben (einschließlichch Staats- und Wirtschaftsformen) aufzufassen, dann ist die Kirche eine Parellel Weltlichkeit zu, z.B., der Umma von Islam. Schlußthese: Die Kirche im Kern ist keine Alternative Lebensformen gegenüber, weil die Kirche übers Leben hinausgeht, d.h., auf "tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit" orientiert ist. (Diesbezüglich ist nach meiner Meinung der jetzige Papst fehl am Platz.Er will zusehr die Welt retten und zuwenig Seelen.) Die Kirche ist für die Ewigkeit.

P.S. Als Wirtschaftsform bzw., effektives Mittel, das Leben zu erwirtschaften, ist der Kapitalismus laut der Interpretation der "Austrian School" von Ludwig von Mises angebracht, und ist dazu in der Lage, den Fragen, die ich unten gestellt habe, eine sinnvolle Antwort zu geben. Jedoch, keine Wirtschaftstheorie darf mit der Kernaufgabe der Kirche gleichgesetzt werden. 100% Gewinn gewinnt meine Seele für die Ewigkeit NICHT!

Ich bitte um Verzeihung für so viele Worte, Leider ist das die Krankheit meines Berufs.

1. Wenn ich eine Reise von Punkt A bis Punkt Z machen wollte, egal mit welchem Transportmittel, nur solange, daß die Reise so billig wie möglich sei, wie könnte ich herauskriegen, welches Mittel am billigsten ist. Katholizismus oder Capitalismus? 2. Wie kaluliert man technologisch? Und wirtschaftlich? Welches Dogma hilft mir? Katholizismus hat mit Leben, Tod, Erlösung zu tun, nicht mit der Art und Weise, wie der Mensch sein Leben rational erwirtschaftet. Oder? Ich warte mit Spannung auf eine Antwort.

By their deeds you shall know them. Also by their non-deeds, you may even learn more about them. Who is "them". "Them" is in the case of promotion of homosexuality the authorities in the Catholic Church who should discipline Vice Pres. Biden. If Biden takes communion and the Church remians silent, I see myself forced to take that to be a non-deed that reveals the "real" beliefs of Church prelates. I hope to hear a peep or two, though thundeous homilies are in order. It is distaste, but the sensing is there in me that the so-called homosexual lobby in the Church is no longer just a lobby. I am scandalized. And I expect prelates to be so too. If not, there is incompatiblity between myself and quite prelates, so much so that I must doubt sharing anything other than the name "Cathoic", smoke without fire.

Wenn jemand die englische Sprache lesen kann, möchte ich ein Buch vorschlagen, unmittlebar fokusiert auf Amerika, "The Third Left" und den linken Ausdruck in Obama. Das Buch: Barry Rubin, Silent Revolution. How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (NY, Broadside Books, 2014--Amazon.de) und von höchsten Belang "Chapter 7: Barrack Obama as Case Study of a Third Left Cadre" und "Chapter 8: Obama at Osawatonmie [eine Stadt, wo er eine Hauptrede hielt]". Ruben kann auf unglaubliche Weise die Aussagen und Taten Obamas und die Nicht-Aussagen und Nicht-Taten Obamas (wo man was erwartet hätte) in eine Ordnung und in eine koherente Totalität zusammenbringen, so daß endlich dieser amerkankischhe Poliktiker als Ausdruck der "Third Left" einsichtig wird. Obgleich Ruben amerikanische Verhältnisse erklärt, ist die von Rubin genannte "Third Left" effektiv die Verwirklichung, Ausbreitung und Umfassung der Kultur ist, die der "kulturelle Marxismus" der Frankfurter Schule erstrebte. Obama gehört nicht zur Kultur, die die SPD von H. Schmit hervorbrachte, sondern eher zu der der "Linke". Es ist mein Urteil, daß die amerikanische "Third Left" einen Auswuchs aus der (für uns) "Second Left" ("cultural Marxism") bzw. der Frankfurter Schule ausmacht; ein Urteil, das meinen Vorschlag die Relevanz des Buches für den deutschen Leser rechtfertigt. Persönlich habe ich das Wachstum der "Second Left" als Student in Amerika, Deutschland, Belgien und Spanien und später als Professor in drei Ländern erlebt. Ich vermute, daß der Deutsche die Lage hier in Deutschland besser verstehen wird, wenn er das Wesen der "Third Left", wofür wir eigentlich keinen Namen haben, erfasst hat. Vielleicht könnte man sagen, daß sich die Postmoderne aus dem platonischem Reich der Ideen in die harte Realität der heutuigen Kultur umgesetzt hat las "Third Left". --Wenn man Englisch verstehen kann, schlage ich das YouTube Video (genau 22 Minuten lang) "The History of Political Correctness", gestaltet von Prof. A. Lind, vor. Da kann man in kurzer Zeit einen Einblick in "cultural Marxism" herausnehmen.

Lenin once wrote a book with the titled What is to be Done? Well, we know what he did and the catastrophy caused...all in hindsight. Posting after posting in Gloria.tv and elsewhere point at an internal breakdown going on inside the Church, all the way up to and including the Pope. and extrapolation points towards collapse. If enough people had read Lenin at the time, may be they could have blocked him and prevented all those horrible things. Maybe! So, in the spirit of prevention re the Church I ask: What is to be done? Simply read or view Gloria.tv and, well, go to work or blab with friends? Slowly I have the impression that nothing can effectively be done, in part because I see too little resistance. Capt. Smith (?) of the Titanic chose to do somethng, i.e., go down with the ship. And Gloria.tv et al.? By et al. I mean the rest of us. And by the "ship" you all know what I mean.

In case some one thinks that I am playing lightly with the term "joy", let us turn to an extremely high class use of it, namely Friedrich Schiller's "Ode to Joy", taken up by Beethoven for his 9th Symphony. I ask any reader first simply to listen in YouTube to the 23 minutes or so of this masterpiece and not worry about understanding the words. Feel the glory, joy, happiness, exhilertation, excitement and triumph (but neither contentment nor consolation) of the music. Then, without worrying about any translation, turn to Mozart's Requiem. Both pieces are marvels of music. But Mozart informed his Requiem with the solemnity of God transcending this world, for after all it is music for a mass. I have my doubts as to how appropiate it would be in practice as the churchgoer could easily begin just to listen. But just hearing it, well, that is the "divine" manfiesting the solemn, grave and somber, yet profound consolation of existence and death. Beethoven's joy simply overcomes such solemnity with a crescendo in exhileration of joy. Musically, we have two incompatible renderings of God and nature and life. Beethoven as many of his romantic contempories, was imbued with panentheism, i.e., God interpentrates nature in all aspects, yet is goes beyond. Pantheism itself treats God and nature as synonomous. Beethoven does not confront the death and destruction IN nature, in human nature, but exudes joyfullness at the intepentertration of God in nature and promising more. (Interestingly, Hitler in the decline of his empire switched from Wagner to Beethoven and listened to the 9th, not to a requiem.)

The reader can find in the internet a translation of Ode an die Freude as the Ode to Joy. I will cite here only a few lines that captureverbally the meaning of "joy":

Joy, beautiful spark of Gods.
Daugthers of Elysium,
We enter, fire-imbibied [= whooped up joy],
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Thy magic powers [not grace] re-unite
What custom's sword has divided,
Beggars become Princes' brothers,
Where thy gentle wing abides.

Be embraced, millions!
This kiss to the entire world!
...

Those who dwell in the great circle
Pay homage to sympathy!
It leads to the stars,
Where the Unknown [not the Trinity] reigns.

Joy all creatures drink
At nature's bosoms,
All, Just and Unjust!
....

Joy, joy moves the wheels
In the universal time machine.
....

Joyful, as His suns are flying,
...
Joyful, as a hero going to conquest,
...

The account of our misdeeds [not sins] be destroyed!
Reconciled the entire world!
...

Brother, drink and chime in,
All sinners shall be forgiven,
And hell shall be no more.

The ode to joy matches well the mood of the music, a mood that knows no sin needing tragic salvation from a Trinitarian God, but only affirmatin of the World. I suggest that the Cardinal is, nolens, volens, a panentheist in practice. The beautiful joy manifested by means of Beethoven incomparfable music is not Christian, but it does affirm this world! And "joy" is the secret of "evangelization"?????

Pardon, I pressed "Submit" by accident. So I will continue:

The first new point is: Walking recently through ,where many thousands of priests and protestant pastors were killed, I had a hard time imagining these men jumbing about in elation, excitement, cheerfulness, exhileration, etc. Indeed, if they had done so, I would have worried about their mental health or concluded that they were "high" on LSD. Dachau, that "little" elimination camp, was a place of sorrow, not jubilation. Nevertheless, there is a sort of "contentment" in one sense, namely that of "consolation" knowing that one's unspeakable pains, torture and coming murder can be redeemed after death through the sufferings and death of Christ. Indeed, one's own death can be in some way joined with that of Christ. That is serious tragedy, not hilarioius joy! The Latin Mass expressed the tragic moment of life in itself. The Mass gave consolation, not ha,ha-"joy". In the context of Dachau, a mood of pentecostal "whooping it up" hilarity would have been out of place, even for Pentecostals. Are the Christians in northern Iraq, under convert or die!, now being driven again from their homes, are they woefully failing the dictates of the Cardinal's "let's be rapturously excited" version of "joy"? They do not look at all joyful to me.

Inadvertently, the Cardinal has revealed what it means to "open the windows to the world" and affirm the world as the current Pope preaches. Tragedy, sorrow, suffering and death have to be excluded from religious life, only to be replaced by relentless "joy". No wonder "sin" must not be mentioned too much, it not "joyful". Alas, with such an exclusion, the death, torture and resurrection of Christ unto salvation beyond this life, all that loses any functional meaning. "Be happy, whoops, be full of joy", and go to a clown Mass (and they do happen) and get "joyed up".

The 1/2 point is the possible reference for the "anti-evangelizing campaign" mentioned by the Cardinal. This campaign cannot be pushed by those not yet accepting the invitation into the joy-community still called the Church. That makes no sense to me. If I am wrong, I ask that someone correct me here. The resistance to the so-called "evangelization" stems from those IN the Church, e.g., Gloria.tv!!!!!! "The well organized" are not the multitudes of non-Christians or non-Catholics. How can they be such when quite likely they are not familiar enough with the Gospel to oppose it? NO, the Cardinal, I suspect, is not referring to some vague, though "organized" group of people, rather to any and all Catholics who find fault and insatisfaction with the "joyous" (sic!) state of the Church today. When the Pope a few days ago apologized to Pentecostals in Italy apparently abused by Catholics, he referred to such abusers as possessed by the Devil. That is strong (and that is no charitable)!!! I suggest that the modernists coagulating behind Pope Francis (and including him) have started a well organized "campaign" against dissenters in the Church, indeed, seeking to demonize them. Beware!

There is some truth here, a lot of it, yet none of the nuggets of truth are new (except 1 and 1/2 newness points). I would like to know just how and where and in what way that Cardinal George said something different from what I heard 60+ years ago, yes in those non-evangelized pre-Vat II years. Are the words of the Cardinal the incredible, divinely inspired message of Vat II. If they are the essence, then Catholic were already realizing such wisdom before Vat II, with a difference: There were then MANY more of them!!!!

"Joy" according to my thesaurus implies: rapture, ecstasy, elation, excitement, cheerfulness, jubilation, exhilerration and, this differs a bit "contentment"

This attitude of the Archbishop sickens me, physically as well as spiritually. The thing today is to find harmony with Christian religions and other religions. We Catholics, probably also the Archbishop himself, are so prejudicially "closed in" on the divinity of Christ. But Muslims find that to be false, indeed, the deification of a human to be blasphemy. So, Dear Archbishop Martin, let us cease causing offense to others and "unclose" our "cosed in" view of Jesus THE Christ and either simply reject the "closed in" view or, at least, push such thoughts into background, both in discussion, behavior and liturgical expression (which the Penetcostal whooping it up liturgy enables-- at any rate keep the "closed in" Latin Mass types away from seminaries). If a mind is not "closed in" on fundamentals, what goes in one ear departs from the other. J'accuse Archbishop Martin with the modern disease of relativism mentioned by Pope Benedict and doubt sincerely the integrity of his belief, i.e., if he really wants "unclosed" ideas. My patience is being tested. A report today in Germany is that, in both Protestant and Catholic Churches, the number of those quitting the Church(es) has increased significantly (though that is not true for German Islam). If prelates like the Archbishop upto and including Cardinals and Pope do not examine statistics, analyze them as to the causalities contained in them, and seek out a strategey supporting the "closed in" tradition (= Being through time) of Catholicism, the only thing constant remaining will be the word "Catholic", not the substance. But as the Jewish commentator, David Goldman, recently concluded after Pope Francis' visit to Israel: Pope Francis is not so much interested in saving souls as in saving the world. This means, to borrow from Obama", a "fundamental transformation", not of America, but of the Catholic Church.
I do not know why I read the posting, it is the usual decadence now informing "modern" Catholicism unto its death.

Dr. Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D, I thank you for your presentation. It must have been spiritually painful. Your friend Jan is fully right to be "upset", as I too am upset. "Ideas have consequences", someone wrote. This piece of wisdom should be coupled with "Consequences stem from ideas (i.e., general principles)". You have painted a series of pro-homosexual events (and absence of events, e.g., condemnation by bishops). Let me call them "consequences". Those favoring the events point to Pope Francis' relativistic "ideas", e.g. "Who am I do judge" and the more dangerous doctine of "mercy" uncoupled from justice. So a question: Just when does one judge with logical validity that the human source(s) of the "ideas" represents "ideas", indeed, basic principles, foreign to or logically incompatible with "traditional" Catholicism? The Catholicism of my youth, supported by thinking of centuries, did not affirm or tolerate the "consequence" of homosexuality (based on fundamental Catholic "ideas"), yet under the "new" management of Pope Francis & Co the "ideas" (often sloppily presented, i.e., from the point of view of a logical ordering of thoughts) are simply NOT Catholic (or, worse, the source is, as Louie Verrecchio of "Harvesting the Fruits of Vat II", "materially heretical"? I hope someone can answer this question for me, for I know who I am who will judge.

Thank you, Leonard P. Wessell, Ph.D, Dr. phil., Doctorado

I do not think that it is historically fair that one distinguishes between Chaimberlain and Churchill as they both were Primie Mininister. Indeed, no American vote was involved. The assertion is foolish. Yours too. The Americans could have used sufficient power to protect citizens in Iraq. That they did not do so. The "Americans", that is another class term which, well, includes me and millions of Americans that had other opinions. It is the fallacy of the misplaced concreteness, mixing the class with its elements. Obama is distinct from all other presidents, except Carter. And Carter let the Shaw fall and we got the "democrat" (as called in the American MSM) Khomenei, the Shia reevolution and the erection of THE state number one that exports terror and, indeed, the Iraq/Iran war >> Iraq/American war.

Let us reflect. Way back before WW II the Republicans in Congress, isolationists, refused to grant Pres. Roosevelt military draft powers and more military. Japan attacked America and destroyed the then main weapon, the battleships, followed 4 days later by a declaration of war by Hitler against that weak nation with "negroes". (Indeed, the non-interventionist Republicans wanted no war ir war-like reaction after the 1937 Nanking massacre of at least 200,000 Chinese by the Japanese army.) The Americans did not elect Gen. Tojo, but they were attacked by him. American electral possiblities are irrelevant

The decisions of politicians is exactly what distinguishes them. The decisions of Bush 1 and 2 to support the Kurds kept them free from Sadam and, indeed, possibly more gas attacks. Had the Americans kept totally out, Sadam would be there merrily killing Kurds. There is no good choice. Bush 1 decided to push Saddam back and Bush 2 to replace him. Both decisions have plus and minus points.

Finally, it is not the fault of the Americans that the Germans elected Hitler. But, Hitler did declare war against Americing. Why this comment? Your remark about the Iraqi people is irrelevant. Did the Iraqi people including Christians keep Sedam from the use gas against the Iranians - a good million died. But, then many American leaders thought Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. There are often no black/white choices. I do not blame either the Japanese nor German people for starting WW II, rather their leaders. Different leaders (e.g., Ad. Yamamoto in Japan), no war. But, once the war is on, the people of Japan and Germany are part of the war--for good or bad.

The problem in Iraq now is the failure, if not refusal, of Obama to have negotiated the leaving of a residual US military in force in Iraq (the demand of his generals) which would have controlled the Shia gov. This is a typical Obama move. The invasion by Bush was short and successful. There was, however, no planning for occupation -- impossible with the small 100,000+ attack force. Bush & Co did not think the matter out. Mistakes that could have been avoided. The Americans had no trouble in Germany after WW II because they occupied the place at first with 1 miilion soldiers. That is no longer possible. The Gulf battle of Bush 1 liberated Arab and Kurd lands from Saddam, but was not completed with occupation -- perhaps a smart move by the elderly Bush. You are, perhaps, unaware of the developping "isolationism" in America. Although McCarthur was willing to take N. Korea, Truman blocked him. Since Korea American doctrine has not be to win a war, just fight to a stand still and negotiate >> led to some partial failures and total failure in Vietnam. This refusal to fight to win has evolved into limited actions (e.g., the Obama "liberation" of Lybia -- done without Congressional approval) and, I predict that under Obama the Euopeans will find themselves left to go it alone. What happens in Europe should Iran with atomic power close down the straights in, say, a decade ? What European carriers and miltary units will open the straights? What if an atomic Iran goes after Sunni states like Saudi Arabia? (Aside: I would force Europeans to carry their share, were I President.)

I do not disagree with you regarding serious errors made in Iraq >> it still might turn out o.k., though I think Obama will exercise little or no American "violence" there and the Caliphate will become a danger for Europe and the US. Obama will not defend endangered Christians as he tends to see Muslim violence as just the reaction of economic oppression in third world parties dressed up as religious. (Were I President, ISIS would have been decimated with bombs -- but then my military thinking is of the WW II type.) Russia will spend 20% of the GDP for a military build up and China is rushing ahead. Meanwhile Obama will reduce the American Navy to fewer ships than were available before WW II, more advanced, but unable to enter many hot spots. I repeat. The American Army is receiving the same treatment. Since Obama has been stingy on use of military (really just Lybia as a debacle), is, I ask you, the world safer than 5+ years ago or at the time of Reagan/Bush 1? Will Russia decide to re-integrate the Baltic states? If Russia cuts off oil to Europe, from where will Europe get it?

In my judgment (and not in mine alone), since WW II the world--Europe--has lived in a Pax Americana, one now eroding rrapidly away. As the Pax Romana disappeared, Europe fell into centuries of war. Indeed, with out the Pax Romana I do not see how St. Paul could have gotten about. 300 years later and Germanic or Asiatic tribes might have killed him, heck,,Rome was sacked. I in no way am a-critical of the Amercan use of its dominat military power. Without it, however, we would be speakiing Soviet talk now. Asia would be speaking Mao talk. Because of the defensive burden shouldered by America (and the deaths of American men and women concern me greatly) I am reluctant to reduce such use to the derogatory term of "violence". I find that unacceptable.

@Abramo, you speak of "violence". Do you mean the Soviet and Chinese supplied N. Vietnamese? You mean the 1967 planned attack upon Israel by Nasser and other Arab nations. Do you mean the destruction of Saddam (or do you prefer his rule so as to be able to gas more Kurds -- Kurds I know thank the US)? Do you mean the massive attack of North Korea on South Korea after WW II? Do you mean the Maoist revolution and the appartently ensuant 90 million deaths? Do you mean Cuba and the flight of millions of Cubans to the US. Do you mean the French vs Algeria war? Do you mean the violence of radical Muslims in North Africa? What do you mean? What did other countries do?

After WW II the USA alone was able to refinance Europe (Marshall Plan), and Germany became capitalististic (at the direction of the US). All European nations have been able to build up their welfare states because America rendered defense protection. (If I ran things, Europe alone would owe $100,000,000 for services rendered --and that would be cheap). Do you mean that the US has kept Taiwan afloat? Do you mean that the USA took over the defense of Japan after WW II as a rearmed Japan would have frightened Asia? (I note American defense protection made it possible for Japan to re-industrialize itself, become a rich nation and all as a democcray --whose Constitution was written under the direction of General McCarthu and his occupational rule (the Japanese did not want to let women vote, McCarthur forced it upon them). What do you mean?

Finally,, Mr. Abramo, hear well!!! The number of American soldiers who died making it possible for Europe not to be overcome by Soviet expansionism and the number of Japanese and Taiwanese and other Asian who have been protected by the American military have been and are a blessing for you!!! Without them, you would be singing a different ideological tune. Where America has failed tyranny arises, e.g., not liberating N. Koreal or surrendering So. Vietnam to the North by the Democratic Party (by 1972 the North was fully smashed --and then Nixon and Watergate and betrayal of the So. Vietnam gov. >>> "boat people".

"Violence" irritates, no, infuriates me when I think of the men and women of America NOW dead making a large part of the world a safer place for peaceful development. And should Iran get the A-bomb, whose carriers will protect Europe? That term is a put down of the lives lost. You might as well say American and Britain were for responsible for the "violence" that destroyed Nazi Germany. No, America and the British "liberated" Germany (and so designates German tv the american led war against Nazis). And, despite problems and failures, Amrican might has worked positively for the world. Alas, Obama is a "anti-military" president. Compare the state of the world at the end of Bush's presidencey and the state today. We all might get a visit from ISIS and, in that event, I expect you first to cry for American defense and then to curse America for using "violence".

I do not understand: Gloria.tv reports the abuse , tyranncal treatment and repression of Christians by "Islamic militants" and then I hear the sad-sack supposed abuse of "the" Palestinians under Hamas dictatorship (and Hamas declared everyone to be a "civilian"). Hamas and is recognized internationally as a terror organization and has sworn to end Israel and kill Jews) in Gaza is an Islamic militant offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood (and we know what the MB tried to do in Egypt and is doing now to Coptic Christians). Beyond the 14 centuries of hate for Jews in Islamic teaching, based on the Koran and the Hadiths, etc., the Muffti of Jerusalem, both a so-called Palestinian Arab (there were only Arabs along the coast until the Arabs in the area now called "Israel" refused the UN 1947 partition and their leaders started calling themselves "Palestinians" (sic)) and a MB member spent years in Nazi Germany, met Hitler and was a friend of Himmler, supplied the Nazi with a division of Muslims and, after escaping post-WW II Nurnberg-type trials, made it back to Jerusalem and appointed his nephew Arafat (THE terrorist) head of the PLO (which has two divisions of Hamas and Fatah). The Nazis had a great direct influence upon "Islamic" Islam, inculcating an extra dose of Jew-hatews.I can document this with studies!!!

In WW II, in order to rid Germany of Nazi tyranny the Allies demanded from the "Germans", viz., "German people" an "unconditional surrender". The US/British bombing of the infrastructure of Nazi Germany cost the death of 500,000 civilians (and German tv calls today the Allied war against Germany a war of "liberation", i.e.,of Germany from the Nazi leadership). When the US Army approached Pforzheim (down the Rhine), the existence of Wehrmacht troops were noted. To avoid a deadly house-to-house battle (see what that meant in Stalingrad for the Russian civilians, not to speak for the contending armies) the Allies called in a 3 hour bombing and, well, thereafter 19,000 deaths (mostly civilian) and NO resistance by the military. Many German cities, i.e., civilian leaders, started asking the Wehrmacht not to defend them as that meant destruction by the Americans or British >> less dead civilians. What is going on in the Hamas dictatorship of Gaza?

Years ago the Israelis were shamed into letting cement enter Gaza. No cement, no living quaters for the civilians, that was the meme. That cement was diverted by Hamas, the dictatorial power over the people, into the tunnel system that Israeli bombs cannot destroy, i.e., demolition teams must do that AFTER conquering the relevant territory. Israel, alas, is not demanding "unconditional surrender" by Hamas, rather seeking to damage Hamas' military infrastructure (which also means rockets underground in cement tunnels, in mosques, near homes, denying fleeing to civilians, etc.). If Israel were right now treating "the Palestinians" (under control of Islamic militants) as the Americans treated "the Germans" (under control of Nazi militants) and if Pforzheim is used as a point of comparison, the so-called death of 500 civilians (not independently confirmed and Hamas "soldiers" count as civilians) would be way beyond 19,000. "Hurrah!", the West said at that time. In glaring contrast to the Allies, the Israelis are acting with restraint!!! The Israelis are attempting to avoid civilian casualties (which the Hamas leaders want as propaganda for fools worldwide, including the Vatican). In the last 3 to 4 days "the Palestinians" shot over 1600 rockets into Israel just as "the Germans" dropped thousand of bombs on Poland in the 1939 invasion. These rockets are not well aimed and could kill many thousands upon thousands of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs (the only "free" Arabs in Arabland). It is luck, not Hamas intention, that thousands upon thousands of Israelis have not been killed. De facto Hamas has led "the Palestinians" into a war of aggression against Israel as did the Nazi lead "the Germans" into a war of aggression against Poland. And both leaderships are genocidial towards Jews. Who said history does not repeat itself?

@Abramo, please offer documentation for your thesis that 99% of violence in the world is due to the United States. I thought that Christians are being persecuted mostly by Muslims. Are Muslims paid agents of the US? Is Hamas a US gov. agency? Was the downed passenger plane over the Ukraine shot down by Americans? What you have written, unless hghly documented, is not just calumny, but an expression of hate -- and so I experience it.

Just one more for the road: @Fidelium, you claim as "codified Catholic teaching" that JEWS are "carnal". Brilliant, though irrelevant, if by "carnal" you mean beings with flesh. Big deal! If you mean by "carnal" that Jews eat like pigs (but not pigs), are hedonists and are, well, inordinately sexual, then prove the thesis with any empirical evidence. If the "carnality" of Jews is "codified (?) teaching", such teaching is calumny unless it proves with scientific evidence that that those poor Jews just cannot stop there carnality, so beastial they are. Do you realize what you are saying? I have had and have contact with Jews in many countries and I know of none, absolutely none, that is in any way i"carnal" in any sense that Catholics are not carnal (and the current Pope seems to be carnally stuffing it down as a BIG eater -- or at least that is the opinion from a Gloria.tv posting). How can you dare to say that a new-born jewish child is, because being jewish, is "carnal" and "blind"? But that is what you logically have said to be "codified Catholic teaching".

Once again, Gloria.tv, there is a latent anti-Jewism in some of your followers that evinces danger for Gloria if you critiques ever can read such excess opinions.