The Azerbaijani government demolished in early April an Armenian cathedral located in Nagorno-Karabakh, according to local media reports, stirring up a long-running conflict in a border region whose territory has been disputed between both countries since the 1990s.
Thank you for covering this. Too few outlets care.
It is hard for me to understand the pope's silence about 120,000 Christians being driven from lands and monasteries that have been Christian for 1500 years, while he simultaneously condemns the west for ramping up the ongoing war with Iran. Why does he so aggressively criticize the West while playing footsie with practitioners of mass rape and ethnic cleansing? Does he want Italy to go the way of Turkey and Paris/Lisieux the way of Myra and Nicea?
Why would you expect Pope Leo to comment on something that, while horrific, occurred three years before he became pope (the 120,000 Christians being driven from their homes)? I don't see any evidence in this article that Pope Leo is "playing footsie" with the Azeri regime, although it appears that Pope Francis did.
The demolition of this ancient cathedral occurred under Leo. The silence is part of a larger pattern of worrying consistency between Leo and Francis. If Leo were to change course, I would praise him. His silence tells another story.
Also, it isn't just this incident that concerns me. Leo's silence is part of a larger pattern. Over 100,000 Sikh and British girls have been raped by Muslim migrant gangs who targeted them largely for their non-Muslim identity, and Pope Leo is silent. Similar things are happening all over Europe. Elderly women in care homes across Europe have been beaten and raped to death by migrant caretakers, but the pope is silent. Instead of asking European governments to protect women, he constantly calls on European women to welcome their rapists. Christianity is not a suicide pact.
Whether in Nagorno-Karabakh, Rotherham, Vänersborg, Uppsala, Stockholm, or Niort, the pope is silent about atrocities committed against Christians. He speaks up a tiny bit about Nigeria but basically never about atrocities perpetrated against women in the West.
Well, I don't think the destruction of a single cathedral (not ancient, built in 2006 and not consecrated until 2019) merits the same response from the pope as the American war on Iran, for example. The pope cannot literally comment on everything. I think we are reading very different news reports, since I haven't heard the pope call "on European women to welcome their rapists." I think we have a basic difference of viewpoint here, and I wish you well.
Just to note, Cdl. Gugerotti is actually a noted expert on Armenian Christianity, Armenian language, and Armenian culture: this was his academic expertise before being made nuncio. As the article here briefly notes, he was actually nuncio to Armenia as well as to Azerbaijan (and Georgia). The article seems to try to make him out as simply some shill for the Azeris, without noting his apparent affinity for Armenia. Or perhaps we also explore increased British or Belarusian influence in the Vatican since Gugerotti's return to Rome?
This looks like a situation where there may be no clean hands, with a corrupt church and corrupt states.
My experience as parishioner in the region at the time is the cardinal is a very good, holy and honest man.
Good feedback, but not very specific. Which cardinal (several are mentioned in the article)? What gave this impression?
One hopes that the translations of the texts are not mistranslations designed to support the Azerbaijani interpretation of Armenian history.
Thank you for covering this. Too few outlets care.
It is hard for me to understand the pope's silence about 120,000 Christians being driven from lands and monasteries that have been Christian for 1500 years, while he simultaneously condemns the west for ramping up the ongoing war with Iran. Why does he so aggressively criticize the West while playing footsie with practitioners of mass rape and ethnic cleansing? Does he want Italy to go the way of Turkey and Paris/Lisieux the way of Myra and Nicea?
Why would you expect Pope Leo to comment on something that, while horrific, occurred three years before he became pope (the 120,000 Christians being driven from their homes)? I don't see any evidence in this article that Pope Leo is "playing footsie" with the Azeri regime, although it appears that Pope Francis did.
The demolition of this ancient cathedral occurred under Leo. The silence is part of a larger pattern of worrying consistency between Leo and Francis. If Leo were to change course, I would praise him. His silence tells another story.
Also, it isn't just this incident that concerns me. Leo's silence is part of a larger pattern. Over 100,000 Sikh and British girls have been raped by Muslim migrant gangs who targeted them largely for their non-Muslim identity, and Pope Leo is silent. Similar things are happening all over Europe. Elderly women in care homes across Europe have been beaten and raped to death by migrant caretakers, but the pope is silent. Instead of asking European governments to protect women, he constantly calls on European women to welcome their rapists. Christianity is not a suicide pact.
Whether in Nagorno-Karabakh, Rotherham, Vänersborg, Uppsala, Stockholm, or Niort, the pope is silent about atrocities committed against Christians. He speaks up a tiny bit about Nigeria but basically never about atrocities perpetrated against women in the West.
Well, I don't think the destruction of a single cathedral (not ancient, built in 2006 and not consecrated until 2019) merits the same response from the pope as the American war on Iran, for example. The pope cannot literally comment on everything. I think we are reading very different news reports, since I haven't heard the pope call "on European women to welcome their rapists." I think we have a basic difference of viewpoint here, and I wish you well.
Just to note, Cdl. Gugerotti is actually a noted expert on Armenian Christianity, Armenian language, and Armenian culture: this was his academic expertise before being made nuncio. As the article here briefly notes, he was actually nuncio to Armenia as well as to Azerbaijan (and Georgia). The article seems to try to make him out as simply some shill for the Azeris, without noting his apparent affinity for Armenia. Or perhaps we also explore increased British or Belarusian influence in the Vatican since Gugerotti's return to Rome?