Accusations against Pope John Paul II are a baseless pretext, says Holy See
Vatican City (AsiaNews) The Vatican has denounced in no uncertain terms accusations made by Nimrod Barkan, an official with Israel's Foreign Ministry, whofaced with the indefensible accusation against Benedict XVI according to which he failed to mention the July 12 terror attack in Netanya after last Sunday's Angelus"invented" the contention that Israel made numerous protests to the Holy See about John Paul's silence, when in fact the late Pontiff was the first head of the Catholic Church in history to visit a synagogue, a Pope who called the Jews "elder brothers", who sought to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, who committed the Church to fight all forms of racism, above all anti-Semitism.
These facts are the highlights of a statement released by the Holy See Press Office, which purposely refers to what Mr Barkan, an official with Israel's Foreign Ministry, said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post on July 26.
"The indefensible accusation against Pope Benedict XVI according to which he failed to mention the July 12 terror attack in Netanya after last Sunday's Angelus could not but be seen by who made it for what it was: a pretext. Perhaps, this is also the reason why attention shifted to John Paul II's alleged silence over attacks against Israel in years past, inventing the contention that the Israeli government made numerous protests to the Holy See, and that, under the new Pontificate, the Holy See change its attitude [towards Israel].
For this reason, it is important to point out that:
a) the interventions of John Paul II against every form of terrorism and against every single act of terrorism against Israel have been many and public, as the statement makes clear;
b) it's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation and [that is] for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law. It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence;
c) just as the Israeli government understandably doesn't allow itself to be told by others what it should say, neither can the Holy See accept teachings and directives by some other authority regarding the leaning and content of its own statement."
.png)
