A response to doubters…
Yes, John Paul II really did kiss the Koran: The Evidence
April 2005, Vatican City: “Saint” John Paul II lying in state, corrupting visibly
On May 14, 1999, “Pope” and now “Saint” John Paul II received a delegation at the Vatican that consisted of the Shiite imam of the Khadum mosque, the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. The delegation was led by Raphaël I Bidawid, who was the Novus Ordo Archbishop of Baghdad at the time and also the Patriarch of Babylon.
As is customary, diplomatic gifts were exchanged on this occasion, and the “Pope” received from the Muslim visitors a copy of the Koran (Quran), the book Islam considers to be God’s revelation to man. What happened then has led to countless outrage, speculation, and damage control efforts since: John Paul II proceeded to kiss the Koran. A picture was taken of the moment he did so, and the photo was distributed through the Associated Press. We have bothered to purchase a license for the right to display the original high-resolution version of the image. Here it is (the caption is supplied by the Associated Press):
© 2018 The Associated Press
When this happened back in 1999, a lot of conservative Novus Ordos were baffled. The Pope kissed the Koran? Surely there must be some mistake! And so the debates began: Was it really a copy of the Koran? Perhaps it was a book of the Gospels? Did he know it was a Koran? Did he really kiss it? Etc. And so the usual arguing and maneuvering began: the excuse-making, the hoping-it-wasn’t-so, the don’t-be-so-quick-to-judge admonitions, the this-Pope-is-an-enigma handwringing, etc. It was very much the same as it is today, or at least as it was in the first few years of Francis’ chaotic pseudo-pontificate. (Only the staunchest and most intrepid reality-deniers still maintain that it’s all a big misunderstanding about Francis — such as Dave Armstrong and Tom Hoopes.)
But then the evidence began to pour in: The Vatican itself reported that the “Pope” had kissed the Koran, and after a short while, no one questioned that part of the story anymore. The Vatican II apologists were left with finding some way to explain and justify it: Does a kiss necessarily signify approval or reverence? Could he have meant to kiss only the “good and true” elements of the Koran? Etc. Back then, Jimmy Akin was already actively working for the pseudo-papal excuse factory, and a 2006 summary of his various arguments can be found here.
That was in 1999. Since then, there has been a whole new generation of Novus Ordos who have never heard of this scandal, or who, upon hearing about it recently, have immediately sought to deny or dismiss it. It is a good idea, therefore, to review the evidence once more to establish that yes, the “Pope” really did kiss the “holy” book of Islam.
Proof #1: The photograph and its official release
In the first place, we have, of course, the photograph, which shows a thick green book with golden embroidery being held by John Paul II very close to his face. Although one cannot see the kiss, John Paul’s facial expression (incl. his closed eyes) and the fact that he holds the book in such close proximity to his face, admit of no other reasonable conclusion. Or are we supposed to believe that the “Pope” was subjecting the Koran to a smell test?
That the book is a copy of the Koran and that he kissed it is information reported by the Associated Press, which was released together with the image. The AP mentions the Vatican’s official newspaper, Osservatore Romano, as the ultimate source (proof here). One may assume that Osservatore Romano itself reported on the incident and released this information together with the photograph. The information, then, comes directly from the Vatican.
Proof #2: The testimony of Patriarch Bidawid
“Abp.” Raphael Bidawid, who was standing right next to John Paul when the incident occurred, provided the following information in an interview with the Vatican’s own FIDES news service:
On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.
At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam.
(“Iraqi Catholic Leader Decries Allied Bombing”, Catholic World News, June 1, 1999)
Not only does this confirm first-hand the veracity of the reports about the “Pope” having kissed the Koran, it also clarifies the motive: The kiss was meant as a sign of respect for Islam. Not that that’s surprising; it’s how everyone understood it — everyone except for certain Novus Ordo apologists, of course. Notice that although we can and must respect people who are unhappily “involved in the darkness of … Islamism” (Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus), we can never respect the religion itself. This is true not just for Islam but for any false religion, whether it be Protestantism, Unitarianism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. You get the idea. But no, John Paul II venerated not people simply but their false religions (remember his love for Voodooism?). And on May 14, 1999, he publicly reverenced a book that contains heresies and blasphemies against the Most Holy Trinity and falsely claims to be God’s revelation to man.
Proof #3: The Vatican’s failure to dispute the reports
A third significant piece of evidence is the fact that the Vatican, at other times so quick to issue denials, did not in the least deny that John Paul II had indeed kissed the Koran. Had he not in fact done so, a denial would have been morally obligatory, especially as controversy was erupting about the incident. Nor was there any downplaying of the event, either: The Vatican did not say that it was a mistake, an accident, a regrettable action committed due to diplomatic pressure, or anything of the kind.
Those who would defend John Paul II at all costs on this, typically try to do it in one of two ways: Those who realize that kissing the Koran is indefensible, stubbornly cling to the idea that despite all the evidence, the book he kissed really wasn’t the Koran; those who realize that they cannot deny that it was indeed the Koran he kissed, proceed to argue that it’s perfectly fine for him to have done so, or at least it’s nothing to get bent out of shape over (the infamous Mark Shea took that approach).
Let us, therefore, also consider various objections that have been raised, and are being raised once again, regarding this Koran kissing scandal.
Objection #1: The book wasn’t the Koran
Response: Yes, it was a copy of the Koran. That is testified to by Osservatore Romano, by Patriarch Bidawid, and by the Vatican’s failure to deny it. It is also confirmed, or at least not refuted, by the photo. The objection that John Paul II was holding and kissing a binder and that a Koran would not be in a binder, is false. Most likely, it was an edition of the Koran similar to this one:
An alternate photo of the occasion shows the book from a slightly different angle (source):
Some claim that it couldn’t have been a Koran because the person who gave it to him was a Christian, and a Christian wouldn’t hand him a copy of the Koran — it was probably a book of the Gospels. But it is simply not true that the man who gave it to him was a Christian. Rather, the man in question was Abdul Latif Hemin Mohammed, the Sunni Muslim president of the board of the Iraqi Islamic Bank (source).
So, all the evidence we have says that it was the Koran John Paul II kissed. Anyone who would contradict that evidence has to furnish at least equally strong evidence, not simply make a totally unsupported claim.
Objection #2: John Paul II didn’t know it was the Koran he kissed
Response: When you claim to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, you have an obligation to know what you kiss in public. And if it should happen that you were being negligent in this matter and kissed something without knowing what it was, and later it turned out you kissed one of the most diabolical and blasphemous works ever produced, then you have an obligation to issue a public explanation and apology and make reparation for what you did. That is traditional Catholic morality: Scandals must be redressed in the same way they are committed; hence a public scandal requires public reparation:
Public scandal should be repaired publicly, even though it has not actually seduced those who are aware of it; for otherwise the evil influence remains. Thus, a drunkard should take the pledge of total abstinence, or else give an example of sobriety; an apostate should renounce his errors as openly as he defended them.
(Rev. John A. McHugh & Rev. Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, vol. 1 [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 1491.a)
Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that John Paul II didn’t know it was the Koran he kissed. In fact, all the evidence we do have implies that he did know and that he kissed it precisely because it was a Koran, because he wanted to show respect towards the religion it represents.
Objection #3: How do you know John Paul II didn’t regret this?
Response: One can only hope that he regretted it, but we have no reason to believe that he did. It is a common tactic of Novus Ordo apologists to assume things they have absolutely no evidence for (and ignoring evidence to the contrary); and then they shift the burden of proof. The fact is that if John Paul II regretted it, it was necessary for him to regret it in public, since the scandal was given in public — as we just saw in response to Objection 2. This he did not do, and therefore we must assume that he did not regret it. To say anything to the contrary is unreasonable and pure conjecture.
Objection #4: Kissing the Koran was just an act of diplomatic kindness
Response: There are many ways to express diplomatic kindness — kissing the “holy” book of a false religion is not a morally permissible one. Regardless of motive or circumstances, some actions are intrinsically evil, and they are therefore forbidden no matter the intent or the consequences. Even if John Paul II had been able to bring about the salvation of the entire world by kissing the Koran, he would not have been permitted to do so. That’s basic Catholic morality:
To be truly good, an action must be good in object, circumstances, and end. The theological axiom expressing this is Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu (“Good is from the entire cause, evil is from any defect”). The reason is that moral goodness consists in conformity to a certain measure or norm, and conformity demands that a thing meet the standards of the norm in all respects. E.g., a beam to be used in constructing a house is no good for the purpose if even one measurement is defective, even though the other measurements are correct. So, too, all the factors of a human act must be good if the act is to be accounted as morally good. This is the reason why a good end does not justify a bad means.
(Rev. Francis J. Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology, 2nd ed. [Milwaukee, WI: Bruce Publishing, 1958], p. 21; some italics added.)
In fact, kissing the Koran has to be considered an act of apostasy. In his famous summary of theology, the Summa Theologica, the Church’s Universal Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, discusses how external acts relate to the sin of apostasy. In one of the objections he proceeds later to refute, he mentions as an example of apostasy not only undergoing the Jewish religious rite of circumcision but also the worshipping at the tomb of Mohammed: “…if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate” (S.T., II-II, q. 12, a. 1, arg. 2). Although this is part of an objection, it is given as an incidental remark, as illustrating an undisputed truth. This St. Thomas leaves untouched in his response; in fact, he confirms it in essence: “It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief…” (S.T., II-II, q. 12, a. 1, ad. 2; italics added).
And yet, many of today’s Novus Ordo apologists would argue that just because you worship at the tomb of Mohammed, doesn’t mean you’re committing an act of apostasy, because you could be praying a Christian prayer to the true God internally, and besides, Mohammed too was redeemed by Christ. See, then, how far removed from actual Catholicism Novus Ordo arguments actually are! (By the way, St. Thomas’ answers to Muslim objections can be read here and are available in hardcopy here.)
The Novus Ordo Sect and the Koran
In conjunction with all this, perhaps some people need to understand what evils the Koran really contains. The Egyptian Novus Ordo Jesuit and expert on Islam, Rev. Samir Kahil Samir, has blasted “Pope” Francis in the past for whitewashing the Koran. Here is an excerpt from his essay:
All the Christian dogmas are rejected by the Koran and Islam.
The figure of Christ as the second person of the Trinity is condemned. In the Koran it says explicitly to Christians: “O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty…” (Koran 4:171). These verses against the Trinity are very clear and need no interpretation.
Finally, the Koran negates Redemption. It even says that Jesus Christ did not die on the Cross, but it was a look-alike: “And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them” (Koran 4:157) . In this way God saved Jesus from the wickedness of the Jews. But then Christ did not save the world!
The Koran mentions Jesus because it aims to complete the revelation of Christ to exalt Muhammad. Besides, seeing what Jesus and Mary do in the Koran, we notice that it is no more than apply the prayers and fasting according to the Koran. Mary is certainly the most beautiful figure among all those presented in the Koran: she is the Virgin Mother, whom no man has ever touched. But she can not be the Theotokos; instead she is a good Muslim.
(Samir Khalil Samir, “Pope Francis and his invitation to dialogue with Islam”, Asia News, Dec. 19, 2013)
It is clear that anyone who venerates this book, this religion, thereby abandons the Faith. John Paul II’s kiss of the Koran was a kiss of betrayl — it was the kiss of Judas (cf. Lk 22:47-48; Mt 10:33).
Although Francis himself has not kissed the Koran (that we know of), he has certainly endorsed it, at least for Muslims:
Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.
(Antipope Francis, Address to Refugees at Sacred Heart Basilica, Rome, Jan. 19, 2014)
In other words: Muslims, be good Muslims! Your faith is valid and good, and it will help you attain your final end. That is a direct and blasphemous denial of the Gospel! It is a diabolical lie, a grave sin against God, and a great injustice against these poor Muslim souls: “How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ” (Rom 10:14,17).
Another high-ranking Novus Ordo prelate who has publicly venerated the Koran, albeit only verbally, is Washington’s “Cardinal” Theodore McCarrick, by the way:
When in 2006 the controversy over the so-called Regensburg address erupted, in which Benedict XVI had quoted disparaging remarks about Islam by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II, the “Pope” rushed to clarify that “this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion” (see footnote 3 here). So Benedict XVI, too, has “due respect” for the blasphemous Koran — good to know!
Of course Benedict also paid his obeisance to Islam in other ways during his 8-year tenure. Recall, for example, his visit to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. His successor Francis did the same thing, of course; although Bergoglio went so far as to unashamedly utter the frightful blasphemy that the Muslim Rohingya tribe is “the presence of God today”.
One has to understand that these blasphemous gestures of profound respect and veneration for Islam are all inspired by and grounded in Vatican II. It is the abominable Second Vatican Council to which this blasphemy, this apostasy, can be traced. The most pertinent statements regarding this come from the abominable declaration Nostra Aetate:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions [the reference here is to Hinduism, Buddhism, and other pagan religions, but what is said can be extended, a fortiori, also to Islam –N.O. Watch]. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men….
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
(Vatican II, Declaration Nostra Aetate, nn. 2-3)
We won’t now comment on the various outrages contained in these lines — this could be done in a future post. Or simply listen to Bp. Donald Sanborn’s powerful critique of the Vatican II documents here, with more information available here. (For those interested in a hilarious parody of Nostra Aetate, “On the Church’s Relationship to Satan”, please click here.)
You get the point: Vatican II represents a completely absurd and inadmissible paradigm shift on false religions. No longer were people supposed to view them as contrary to the will of God and leading away from Him and His truth, but as incomplete, “almost-got-it-right”, “not-perfect-but-good-enough” approaches to God’s revelation. Error was now to be presented not as a denial of truth but as an imperfect realization thereof. Positive aspects or elements were to be dwelled upon, rather than satanically-inspired soul-destroying blasphemies and lies. If this reminds you of Amoris Laetitia and its concept of sin as “imperfect holiness” to you, that’s no accident: Amoris applied the Vatican II error of “partial truth” to morality.
As if all of this were not enough yet to establish the frightful facts about John Paul II, the Novus Ordo Church, and the Muslim Koran, there is one more “goody” to report, which we have saved for last: John Paul II’s kissing of the Koran in 1999 wasn’t the first time he’d done it. It was at least the second time. He had done the same thing on Aug. 19, 1985, while visiting Casablanca, Morocco. The Novus Ordo media site Rome Reports says as much in the following video, beginning at the 2:34 mark:
More information about this first kissing incident is available in Italian here.
Now you know why some people refer to John Paul II, whose secular name is Karol Wojtyla, as Karol the Koran Kisser.
He was a repeat offender.
Image sources: Presidencia de la Nación Argentina via Wikimedia Commons / Associated Press (L’Osservatore Romano)
License: CC BY 2.0 / Rights Managed (Paid)