The Pope and CNN

[Japher]

The pope did offer assylum to Saddam... Not sure what the says, but...

GePap: in your response to Ned you make claims (seemingly) that the pope is of moral clarity, nor do you have sole claim to 'good'", by indicating that Ned was not since he opposed the pope, indirectly. Do really believe that the pope is "good"? Or a fountain for "moral clarity"?

I am not going to get in to a pope-bashing mode, though I do not appreciate him, but making such accusations about someone who you have no real knowledge of is absurd. Especially since popes throughout the centuries have themselves justified wars, slaughters, and mindless killings. What is it that makes the leader of faith so morally just?

I think that pope is harboring not only Saddam, but other terrorists of the world that are being sought out. If this is the case, will America attack the Vatacin? Most likely not. Yet, what does that say about the pope? It is not the popes position to carry out the works of god, but to deliver and ensure that the works of god are adhered to by man... Is he doing this?

Speaking out agains the war is something I would expect from the pope. Yet, this does not mean that he did not do it for alternative reasons other than "that's the way of the lord."

[Ned]

DetroitDave, I would almost agree with this. Saddam may have left the Christians in his country alone. Tariq Aziz, after all, was a Christian.

But, would the same have been true in other parts of the world where radical Islam is strong?

The Pope continues to express his concern that the Muslim community not attack Christians because of US/UK actions. Why? Because the US and the UK are perceived to be "Christian" nations by the world of Islam.

I still think this is the major reason the pope took the position he did. The other positions are PC fobs that provide a smokescreen for what he was really concerned about.

[Arrian]

Oh, things would be much better if could just go back to the good 'ole days of warmongering Popes. Those guys were so much fun!

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
The pope did offer assylum to Saddam... Not sure what the says, but...

GePap: in your response to Ned you make claims (seemingly) that the pope is of moral clarity, nor do you have sole claim to 'good'", by indicating that Ned was not since he opposed the pope, indirectly. Do really believe that the pope is "good"? Or a fountain for "moral clarity"?

I am not going to get in to a pope-bashing mode, though I do not appreciate him, but making such accusations about someone who you have no real knowledge of is absurd. Especially since popes throughout the centuries have themselves justified wars, slaughters, and mindless killings. What is it that makes the leader of faith so morally just?

I think that pope is harboring not only Saddam, but other terrorists of the world that are being sought out. If this is the case, will America attack the Vatacin? Most likely not. Yet, what does that say about the pope? It is not the popes position to carry out the works of god, but to deliver and ensure that the works of god are adhered to by man... Is he doing this?

Speaking out agains the war is something I would expect from the pope. Yet, this does not mean that he did not do it for alternative reasons other than "that's the way of the lord."

We are not talking about "Popes throught the centuries", we are talking about this Pope. I disagree greatly with this pope's conservative Caholic agenda, but one thing I do know is that this pope, the man who has travelled more than any world leader in god knows how long, if ever, and has spoken directly to more human beings in person that any other human being , simply can't be accused of turning a blind eye to human misery, specialy since he lived through some of the worst cases of it personally.

As for your whole "harboring argument". I have no clue what you are talking about. I would add that the Church has this notion of sanctuary that applies to all human beings.

I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries.

[Japher]

I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries.

I agree with you. Yet, should not the pope abide by the laws of his god? Whether they are evil, wicked, etc. is not for the pope to decide... That is something only god is qualified to judge. According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

[monolith94]

Those raging papists are tryin ta take over tha world!!!

[Ned]

GePap said,

"I don;t think the Pope is a fountain of moral clarity, but unlike Ned, I don;t see the Pope labelling his opponents evil, wicked and aganist human decency, like Ned decries."

What I would like for the popes, more than anything else, is to stand for the betterment of a mankind. What I condemn in this pope is his moral selectivity. He refuses to acknowledge the barbarities of Saddam and his régime, while at the same time calling on the United States to end its death penalty. How bizarre!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
I agree with you. Yet, should not the pope abide by the laws of his god? Whether they are evil, wicked, etc. is not for the pope to decide... That is something only god is qualified to judge. According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

Hmmm. if only God is qualified to judge Good and evil, what the heck was the US and Uk admin.'s doing? As for the seeking out part: when has the pope decried the sending of war criminals to trial? Can someone find the paragraph in his speeches? The question here was one of pre-emptive attack and whether it met the requirements of a just war. The Pope felt it didn't.

What I would like for the popes, more than anything else, is to stand for the betterment of a mankind. What I condemn in this pope is his moral selectivity. He refuses to acknowledge the barbarities of Saddam and his régime, while at the same time calling on the United States to end its death penalty. How bizarre!

What does the betterment of mankind entail, Ned? Every action has unintended consequences. It will be decades until the unintended consuequences of this war, which will be by far the most numerous of the consuquences, are sorted out. If, when that final tally comes, the scales tilt a little to the plus side for humanity, then you can say this war was for the betterment of Mankind. Until then you have been sorely premature.

On the second part: if the Pope fails to denounce Saddam to your liking, fine, he is wrong in that. But failure to point out one moral evil does not preclude him from pointing out another, specially if he feels he has a much better chance of reaching one audience (the US) than another (the Baathists).

[Felch]

Originally posted by Japher
According to Exodus 21:12, however, the pope should support the seeking out those who commited war crimes, and those who have taken life (on both sides)... this doesn't seem to be the case.

The Catholic Church prefers to look to the Gospels for guidance, rather than the Old Testament. It is, after all, the Christian Church. And time and time again, the message Jesus preached was one of forgiveness, reconcilliation, and the redemption of man. That's what sanctuary is about, giving people another chance no matter what.

[Ben Kenobi]

Japher:

The passage in question:

Exodus 21:12-14

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

In the context, this could be used as an argument for the death penalty, but not in the case of pre-emptive war, which is the problem at hand.

[Q Classic]

ned, i'm sorry you feel that way about our holy father.

if you choose to view the pope in a negative light, simply because you feel he is being inconsistent with his beliefs when he has explained it as best he can, even after some have mentioned that the pope's infallibility (unerring rightness in moral judgement) regards only religions matters...

well, that's that. besides, it's not like the us itself has ever been that open and welcoming to all of us papists, nee?

[Ned]

GePap, So you agree the Pope has a double standard. He swats at flies in America while ignoring the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Iraq. You say it is because he can influence America but cannot influence the Ba'ath party. Nonsense, I say. Saddam did everything in his power to cover up the true nature of his regime. Witness how he handled CNN. The withering light of Papal rebuke may have done wonders. But the Pope, the coward that he is, focused instead on the US!

I say coward because he was unwilling to put at risk Christians and Churches in Islamic countries in order to save millions of Muslims from being tortured and killed. This is the same kind of heroism demonstated by Pope Pius XII during WWII when he refused to complain about the wholesale slaughter of Jews and Gypsies because he feared Hitler's reaction against Catholics.

[Q Classic]

ned, out of curiosity, do you have any respect for anybody in the anti-war crowd?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, i'm sorry you feel that way about our holy father.

if you choose to view the pope in a negative light, simply because you feel he is being inconsistent with his beliefs when he has explained it as best he can, even after some have mentioned that the pope's infallibility (unerring rightness in moral judgement) regards only religions matters...

well, that's that. besides, it's not like the us itself has ever been that open and welcoming to all of us papists, nee?

Q Cubed, the Pope is the leader of a two thousand year old Church. He represents over a billion Catholics. He is uniquely positioned to be a force for good in this world. To have a man in this position who is focused on critizing the United States while real evil stalks this world is an abomination.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, out of curiosity, do you have any respect for anybody in the anti-war crowd?

No.

[Ned]

Let me clarify that - I have no respect for the position they hold.

[DinoDoc]

If we're going to criticize the Pope for his beliefs could we at least show where they are at odds with Catholic doctrine regarding the Just War before bringing out the knives?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, So you agree the Pope has a double standard. He swats at flies in America while ignoring the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Iraq. You say it is because he can influence America but cannot influence the Ba'ath party. Nonsense, I say. Saddam did everything in his power to cover up the true nature of his regime. Witness how he handled CNN. The withering light of Papal rebuke may have done wonders. But the Pope, the coward that he is, focused instead on the US!

I say coward because he was unwilling to put at risk Christians and Churches in Islamic countries in order to save millions of Muslims from being tortured and killed. This is the same kind of heroism demonstated by Pope Pius XII during WWII when he refused to complain about the wholesale slaughter of Jews and Gypsies because he feared Hitler's reaction against Catholics.

No, I do not agree he has a double standard.

But the Pope, the coward that he is, focused instead on the US!

The last thin this Pope is is a coward. He has stood up to more dictators and has done more for human freedom than little geporgie Bush will ever do; I don;t give damn if he did not critisize Saddam to your liking.

I honestly think this post is absurd on several levels. If this is your opnion, fine. I will no longer argue with you on it. I will just say that this post is horribly misguided and wrong, on multiple levels, and you have let your moralistic (but not moral) outrage run amok.

[Lazerus]

I wonder if in a few years time if Iraqs standard of living has improved if the pope will even say well done for rebuilding ....... nah hes more likely to emerge as the anti-christ.

[VetLegion]

Vin Diesel is anti war

[Ben Kenobi]

Lazerus:

I wonder if in a few years time if Iraqs standard of living has improved if the pope will even say well done for rebuilding ....... nah hes more likely to emerge as the anti-christ.

So we should kill people in order to help the ones remaining?


I'm glad to hear the Pope stand up to Bush and the rest.

[Q Classic]

so much anti-pope and anti-catholic sentiment. ah, well.

by the way: for those of you who don't understand why some muslims tend to rally around muslim figures when their religion or their religion's leaders are attacked, this is a good example.

===

pretty much what it all boils down to is this:
the pope only believes in "just wars".

now, under the guidelines laid out by st thomas aquinas and st augustine, the "just war" is a war that is undertaken in self-defence or to redress a wrong, is a last resort, and is done only when there is minimal chance of collateral damage. finally, the "just war" ends with a situation that is better than the status quo.

the reason why the pope was against this war was because he didn't feel as if it was time for the last resort yet. indeed, at the same time that the pope sent an emissary to bush pleading for peace, he sent a message demanding that saddam disarm (Zenit).
his envoy states:

The Holy See is urging those in positions of civil authority to take fully into account all aspects of this crisis. In that regard, the Holy See's position has been two-fold. First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully its international obligations regarding human rights and disarmament under the UN resolutions with respect for international norms. Second, these obligations and their fulfillment must continue to be pursued within the framework of the United Nations.

The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region, and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity.

(Zenit)

american bishops, also against the war, have stated:

We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing weapons. We welcome the fact that the United States has worked to gain new action by the UN Security Council to ensure that Iraq meets its obligation to disarm. We join others in urging Iraq to comply fully with this latest Security Council resolution. We fervently pray that all involved will act to ensure that this UN action will not simply be a prelude to war but a way to avoid it.

(USCCB)

nor is the pope a friend towards terrorism, or seeking to appease it; indeed, he believes that nothing could ever justify terrorism, and that it must be uprooted (ap).

all told, i'm sorry that it wasn't enough for you, ned.

[Q Classic]

lazerus:

I wonder if in a few years time if Iraqs standard of living has improved if the pope will even say well done for rebuilding ....... nah hes more likely to emerge as the anti-christ.

i'd like to point you here:

The Vatican said the collapse of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime marked a "significant opportunity for the population's future" and pledged to help in rebuilding and humanitarian efforts.
...
In a statement April 10, one day after the Iraqi capital fell to U.S. troops, the Vatican said it hoped remaining coalition military operations around the country would finish rapidly to spare Iraqis further suffering.
It also called on Iraqis and the international community to embrace the post-war challenge of working to build "an era of peace in the Middle East."
...
"Now that Iraq's material, political and social reconstruction is coming into view, the Catholic Church is ready to lend the necessary assistance through its social and charitable institutions," the Vatican said.
...
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top doctrinal official, said the "result is happier than could have been thought."
...
In the post-war period, the cardinal said, "It is important that the reconstruction of Iraq is not carried out by just one power but by all nations: It is a common responsibility of all of us for this tormented country."
(CNS)

[Q Classic]

and why am i, a lousy catholic who hasn't gone to confession in years, defending my church? isn't there any other catholic around?

[Ben Kenobi]

I've been defending the Pope, though not with the same thrust as you have.



I think most of the Catholics on the boards ignored the original troll.

[Felch]

I'm Catholic, but I don't do research about it. You're right though.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Pope had every right to express his viewpoint about the impending war with Iraq. It's his recent reminder to the fatihful that they ought to shun protestants that has me miffed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Try dating one, Dr. Strangelove.

Seriously, this Pope is the one responsible for the Second Vatican Council.

Without him, we would still be 'apostate.'

So he gets a big thumbs up from me.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and why am i, a lousy catholic who hasn't gone to confession in years, defending my church? isn't there any other catholic around?

Actually, I am practicing and have had confession within the past month, but I don't feel the need to defend the Pope against people who are predisposed against the man in the first place. I have quoted the Vatican's position on this matter, and consider the facts of this specific case to be of a nature to give both sides room to stand firm.

So why bother arguing the inarguable? Ned disagrees with the Pope, as is his right. Big freakin' deal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JohnT


Actually, I am practicing and have had confession within the past month, but I don't feel the need to defend the Pope against people who are predisposed against the man in the first place. I have quoted the Vatican's position on this matter, and consider the facts of this specific case to be of a nature to give both sides room to stand firm.

So why bother arguing the inarguable? Ned disagrees with the Pope, as is his right. Big freakin' deal.

Actually, I was not against this pope at all before his current stand against liberation of Iraq. I thought he might have been the best pope in history. Now he stands side by side with St. Peter in displaying his courage under fire. "Are you a disciple of Christ?" No. Three times Peter denied it.

The bottom line is that the pope was unwilling to agree that this war was a just war because of his concern over Muslim reaction. In the post-victory statements, he still cannot bring himself to say that justice was done. How can the outcome be "better" as he seems to admit without also agreeing that war was necessary to bring about this result. He cannot seriously still believe that Saddam would have agreed to the UN resolutions on WMD and human rights voluntarily?

The pope is still worried that Muslims will take revenge on Christians because of the war. The guy is deluded. The Muslims of Iraq are overjoyed at getting rid of Saddam. This cannot be lost on the Muslims of other countries.