A Bullet and Swastika for Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco
The latest threat against the newly elected leader of the Italian Bishops Conference, Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, arrived in an envelope which contained a bullet and a photo of the archbishop with a swastika cut into it. It was apparently sent in retaliation for his opposition to a proposed Italian law which would grant marriage privileges to unmarried couples (including those of the same-sex). The previous threats have been in the form of graffiti written on Catholic churches which said, “Beware Bagnasco” and “Die Bagnasco.” In my opinion, these sort of things are perpetuated not only by misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the facts on Catholic teaching by the secular world, but more so by those who hold or have held positions of authority within The Church.
.jpg)
“Die Bagnasco” wasn’t a threat, it’s just German for “The Bagnasco”
Yeah, Progressives are all about loving their fellow man…
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — April 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Beyond being a very serious threat to the Archbishop’s life and a slur upon his character, does this qualify as a hate crime in Italy or the EU? If the insane “hate crime” bill now being trumpeted by Democrats on Congress ever was passed completely and signed by the President (God forbid) would such a bill allow either a similar prelate to be arrested for a hate crime or the perpetrator of the threats to his life to be charged?
The whole movement (i.e., homosexual zealotry) bears close watching–the potential for various kinds of violence from this group is enormous.
Comment by John Hetman — April 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
“…does this qualify as a hate crime in Italy or the EU?” We know the answer to that one … “no”.
I received information on this today which dovetails the recent headlines out Italy….
source:
http://www.c-fam.org/index.php?option=com_performs&formid=5%20&Itemid=141
Homosexual Hands off Poland
To the President of the European Parliament,
Hans-Gert Pöttering:
On April 25, 2007, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Polish officials for proposing educational policies to protect their children from homosexual propaganda. The EU resolution condemned the Polish government and critized the Polish Prime Minister for saying that “promoting a homosexual lifestyle to young people in school as an alternative to normal life goes too far, and that these kinds of initiatives in schools have to be stopped.†The Parliament asserts that this viewpoint and any implementing legislation are a violation of European human rights law. This is simply not true.
We, thousands of citizens from all over the world, stand in solidarity with the Polish people and strongly condemn the European Parliament resolution on homosexuality in Europe. The resolution is a blatant attempt to bully the people of Poland from exercising their rights to educate their sons and daughters according to their cultural and national traditions. We call on the Parliament to stop this promotion of a radical social agenda, including the proposed “fact finding mission” to Warsaw and the Parliament’s threat of legal action against Poland.
First, the European Parliament has no competence in the area of education. ….”
Comment by pml — May 2, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
cont’d
Homosexual Hands off Poland
To the President of the European Parliament,
Hans-Gert Pöttering:
On April 25, 2007, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Polish officials for proposing educational policies to protect their children from homosexual propaganda. The EU resolution condemned the Polish government and critized the Polish Prime Minister for saying that “promoting a homosexual lifestyle to young people in school as an alternative to normal life goes too far, and that these kinds of initiatives in schools have to be stopped.†The Parliament asserts that this viewpoint and any implementing legislation are a violation of European human rights law. This is simply not true. We, thousands of citizens from all over the world, stand in solidarity with the Polish people and strongly condemn the European Parliament resolution on homosexuality in Europe….”
Comment by pml — May 2, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
I’ll sign on to that, PML! Homosexual activism and zealotry are a curse and a danger to our world as much as Islamicism, perhaps more as its has slithered into our society under the guise of toleration.
Comment by John Hetman — May 2, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Catholics routinely make death threats to those who offend them:
NEW YORK (AP) — A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled Friday amid complaints from Catholics, including Cardinal Edward Egan.
The “My Sweet Lord” display was shut down by the hotel that houses the Lab Gallery in Manhattan, said Matt Semler, the gallery’s creative director. Semler said he resigned after officials at the Roger Smith Hotel shut down the show.
The artwork was created from more than 200 pounds of milk chocolate and features Christ with his arms outstretched as if on an invisible cross. Unlike the typical religious portrayal of Christ, the artwork does not include a loincloth.
The 6-foot sculpture was the victim of “a strong-arming from people who haven’t seen the show, seen what we’re doing,” Semler said. “They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions.”
But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as “a sickening display.” Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”
The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display. (Watch Cavallaro touch up the sculpture, explain its purpose Video)
“In this situation, the hotel couldn’t continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety,” Semler said.
Comment by frank — May 3, 2007 @ 10:02 am
PML,
If Catholics abridge the right to freedom speech, then they have no right to freedom of religion. Rights come from a social contract. Catholics forget that at their own peril.
Comment by frank — May 3, 2007 @ 10:05 am
As for the bullet sent to Bagnasco, it was inappropriate though no unjust. The pope once wrote that when gay people are murdered, they bring it on themselves by pursuing civil equality.
The bullet was inapproriate because the best way to deal with arrogance and self-righteousness is with public humiliation. I’d have mailed Bagnasco a very large dildo with instructions. Now that Benedict is supporting him, I’ll have to make it a double header.
Comment by frank — May 3, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Frank,
Your assertions make very little sense. The assertion that Catholics regularly make death threats against people who disagree with them is hardly supported by your AP article. The article does not say who made the threats and even if some of them were Catholic, the article would be at most anecdotal.
Your claim that rights are given by a social contract puts you in the position of agreeing with some of the worst purveyors of crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen. If as you say, rights, for example the right to human dignity, is something granted by society then as you imply society can take it away. Thus you must agree that the Nazi’s had the right to deny personhood to those “subhumans” they gassed to death in WWII and that the US had the right to deny personhood to the black slaves in the antebellum US. Rather rights arise from the fact that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have an inalienable dignity. There is also a hierarchy to rights. Freedom of speech is a relative right that must serve the common good. It is not an absolute as you imply when you claim that Catholics do not have the right to remind society that SSA disorder needs to be treated not embraced. Therefore, restrictions on freedom of speech would have nothing to do with the right to freedom of the expression of religion.
I disagree with your comments about the best way to deal with arrogance and self-righteousness; which is why you have not been humiliated in this response.
Thanks also for revealing the level of your emotional maturity in your final comment above as it suggests that emotivism rather than rational discourse is to be expected from you and so this conversation probably will have to come to an end here.
Comment by David — May 3, 2007 @ 10:35 am