Cardinal Laghi is quoted summarizing the Holy Father's views on the situation with Iraq as:

...Cardinal Laghi did stress two points: "First, the Iraqi government is obliged to fulfill completely and fully to 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."

In this matter and other matters, the Holy Father seems to give such importance to the United Nations. But why? What moral authority does it have? It's composed largely of horrendous dictators (or their representatives) and corrupt politicians with their own best interests as their first through tenth priority. You currently have Libya leading the council on human rights, Iran leading the one on disarmament with Iraq soon to follow, you have France and Germany threatening vetoes to the use of force on Iraq when it is well documented that they were the countries that profited from and were the main suppliers for illegal supplies for Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction, Russia and China also are threatening the same and also have contributed to Saddam's build-up and all four of these countries are those most dependent upon the profits to be made from Iraqi oil. Of course that don't want a war. But I seriously doubt they are so naive that they believe further UN inspections and inspectors are going to bring about disarmament (what a joke!), are that they are solely motivated by this great love for peace (Germany?, China?, Russia?! - give me a break!). Not to mention their complete ineptitude. It's only been 12 years, a zillion and a half "warnings" to Saddam: "if you don't listen to us this time, you're REALLY going to be in trouble", 17 UN resolutions, .... and they have made absolutely NO progress in the disarmament of Iraq. Ney, Saddam has only moved forward resulting from the UN. (Israel's boming and the US lead war back in 91 were the only things that have slowed him down. The UN has been totally useless.) So why does the current pope put so much credence in such a corrupt and inept group? I liken the UN to communism. In a lot of ways, it sounds great on paper, but unless it's run by saints, it turns out to be a big mistake. God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 08, 2003

Answers

Jmj
Hello, Hollis.
I know exactly where you're coming from. I share many of your thoughts and feelings on this subject.

The Vatican has "permanent observer" (non-voting) status at the U.N.. I can guarantee you that the pope and Vatican officials are fully aware (even more than you and I) of the weaknesses of the U.N.. For example, the Holy See had had to battle like mad, behind the scenes, in the Slick-Willy era to work with Catholic and Moslem nations to put together pro-life coalitions at several U.N. conferences, so that the anti-life, radical-feminist policies of U.S. and European liberals could not be codified and imposed on the whole world.

So what, one may ask, is going on here?
The Church is almost 2,000 years old. She retains a "memory" of all of modern history's conflicts and is aware of the tremendous hatreds, distrusts, scheming, isolationism, etc., that existed from time immemorial through World War II. Therefore, I think that the Church's leaders see any worldwide body of cooperation, no matter how flawed, as far better than none at all. I think that they believe that the existence of the U.N. prevented the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from fighting a war between 1950 and 1990. I think that they are convinced that, if the U.N. cannot function, or if it ceases to be, World War III will soon come (or at least widespread regional wars).

I'm sure that the Church's leaders want to make sure that each nation, like each human being, is treated with both justice and mercy. So I think that they believe that justice and mercy are more likely to be fruits of a collaborative effort (i.e., votes by a majority of a "family of nations") than fruits of a unilateral or narrow effort (i.e., a single "police" superpower or a small alliance).

I'm not saying that I fully agree with the Church's leaders on these things. I'm just mentioning what I think is on their minds.
I must say that I have been troubled by one or two recent pronouncements by the Vatican officials who spoke of a need for U.N. agreement before certain actions (e.g., war on Iraq) can be undertaken. It's not that I think that the Church leaders are forbidden to express their opinion on this. They certainly have such a right. But I think that they need to be careful to use terminology that makes clear that they are expressing opinions -- providing suggestions and guidance based on their limited knowledge of the facts -- and are not trying to place a final pre-judgment (of "good" or "evil") on certain future acts that are being contemplated by an allicance of at least 35 nations (including the U.S.). I don't believe that Vatican officials can use language that seems to force individuals or nations, under pain of sin, to act only on a "majority-of-nations-rules" basis -- because, to my knowledge, the Church has never taught such a binding doctrine.

I think that the Church is being very much in the forefront today -- more than some people expected -- for several reasons, a couple of which are ...
1. There is a significant minority (3%?) of Catholics in the Iraqi population, and they have an extremely vocal patriarch living in Baghdad. He has pressed the Vatican for protection and freedom from sanctions for twelve years.
2. For 40 years (and especially for the last decade), there has been incessant, anti-Catholic griping about the alleged "silence" of Pope Pius XII during WWII. The Vatican does not want anyone to be able to complain about the "Vatican silence of 2003" many years from now.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 08, 2003.

"an allicance [sic] of at least 35 nations (including the U.S.)"

Try:

the US and GB, acting alone.

-- Open Minded Otherwise (Osama.is@a.murderer), March 10, 2003.

Well, even if the security council - that pearl of great price - did vote for war guess what powers would be involved? USA and GB with the slimmest and lightest involvement of France (chiefly to protect the oil derricks their companies have built and run in Iraq), with a smattering of a couple of arab armies in for the ride. Russia and China have virtually no units (thank God) that they could or would send into the desert.

So no matter how war comes the same actors are going to be involved. After all for 12 years only the US and UK have had the wherewithall (money and military) to patrol the UN established no-fly zones.

So if we go in, we'll go in to win and if the UN gives us their blessing, great. If not, I suspect about 35 other small countries will give us their blessing and maybe their "advisors" and a jeep or two. Spain might send a frigate to patrol the otherwise safe Persian gulf...

Yep. big bad America is coming. Bad precisely because we're big (apparently).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2003.

I repeat:

"an allicance [sic] of at least 35 nations (including the U.S.)" Try:

the US and GB, acting alone.

So you agree then?

-- Open Minded Otherwise (Osama.is@a.murderer), March 11, 2003.

The U.N is about as useful as horns on a cat...Get the United States out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of America.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.

Bush's original plan was the best -- isolationism. not quite get the US out of the UN and UN out of US, but get the US back behind its own borders and leave the mature, developed world to get on with it. if the US withdrew its troop from the Middle East and stopped supplying weapons to Israel, Bin L would have little to bang on about. and there would be little point in joining his heinous gang. don't get me wrong, Bin L must be brought to justice and he will. it's just a matter of time. but why give him more PR ammo??

-- Open Minded Otherwise (Osama.is@a.murderer), March 12, 2003.

I found a relevant quote from British historian Paul Johnson:

Though its supporters try to pretend the United Nations somehow embodies idealism, "more than half a century of experience shows that the U.N. is a theater of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption, a street market of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism. It is a place where mass-murdering heads of state can stand tall and sell their votes to the highest bidder and where crimes against humanity are rewarded."

Latest proof: The extraordinarily abusive dictatorship of Libya gets picked to lead the laughable "U.N. Commission on Human Rights."

The British historian says Washington should have rejected London's wish to let the U.N. decide on Iraq. "In fact, going this way has done a lot of damage to U.S. (and British) interests and has given Russia, China and other powers the opportunity to drive hard bargains."

God Bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 14, 2003.

.....whereas the Pope believes that the UN is the correct vehicle for action against Iraq.

Good Catholics will prefer the Pope's opinion to that of any historian when it comes to matters of CATHOLIC MORALITY, not matter how unpalatable it might seem.

-- Open Minded Otherwise (Osama.is@a.murderer), March 14, 2003.

Having been a student of John Paul the Great's writing and magisterium for a decade, I think his teaching is among the deepest and most profound in Church history...

However, regarding Iraq and war both in 1991 and now, I have noticed that while alot of people say alot about his anti-war stance, there is not a whole lot of actual Papal texts specifying why exactly the Pope was against War in the specific case of Iraq.

After all, in 1991, there was a unanimous UN Security council vote in favor of military action, and Iraq had previously invaded and occupied a neighboring country and was actively engaged in serious human rights abuses... yet the Pope was against military action.

Neither then nor today did He spell out exactly what alternative the world community had, nor why exactly a military campaign was "unjust".

Merely saying "it's unjust" may be fine for you. But every moral argument is based on some reasons, and it's those reasons which are lacking.

If the reason is "I'm afraid about possible deaths" or "I'm afraid about possibly enraging a billion Muslims", then we must recognize that these reasons are not categorical and de principis - but mutable, circumstancial and based on guesses.

So by all means, if you have some really good Papal texts which actually spells out what the Pope is basing himself on, I'm all for it. Let's have it.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.

so the Pope's got the evidential burden then? that seems to be what you are saying.

PS "The Great". is that "pre-emptive"?? not allowed, i'm afraid.

-- Open Minded Otherwise (Osama.is@a.murderer), March 14, 2003.

Joe,

You're a voice of reason in this wilderness. Even if this were something declared ex cathedra by the Pope, I STILL WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY!!!! As I stated in a previous post, I disagreed with the Church's teaching on contraception, but I matured in my faith and realized this wasn't an option for a Catholic. I then gave full consent. But then I needed to understand why. I think that's part of being a good Catholic. Our faith is not called to be a "blind faith." Yes, give full consent of intellect and will to all matters of faith and morals presented by the Church for the faithful to believe. But we also need to be able to give reason for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15).

If you want to discuss whether the pope's stance on the UN is something the faithful are required to give consent to or not, fine. I personally don't think this is binding, but I really haven't researched it, so if someone can make a good case, let's here it. But the main reason for this thread is to understand what the reasons are for the Holy Father to put so much confidence in such a corrupt and inept group.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 14, 2003.

Hello? Hi. I'm confused.

How is it that a lot of you people walk around locked and loaded with some supposed all encompassing loyal to the Holy Father and to the magisterium kick of which ya'll are so sure of but can't seem to concretely define, using the aforementioned as the guiding principle by which you heap indignition upon them poor, misguided traditionalists in such a very unecumenical manner...

...but when it hits your own personal spritual wallet as in the case of this war, suddenly the Pope is not well enough informed and the Holy Spirit is taking a leave of absence.

I like that kind of absurdity. It makes my job of being a traditionalist Catholic a little easier every day.

"Having been a student of John Paul the Great's writing and magisterium for a decade, I think his teaching is among the deepest and most profound in Church history..."

What is this John Paul the Great? Who are we to judge? How would we know if he will ultimately be determined to deserve the title The Great?

I do not think it is among the deepest and most profound in Church history.

You do realize that I do not sin in saying as much.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 15, 2003.

Jmj

The pope's "stance" is not "binding," Hollis. As Joe and I have mentioned on other threads, the new Catechism places the final "prudential" decision on matters of this kind in the hands of the secular governmental leaders -- those who must protect the common good -- because only they are in possession of all the facts (including secret "intelligence") that would allow them to judge whether a contemplated conflict meets the "just war criteria."

Since my last post on this thread (a week ago), I have come to realize that the description of the U.N. quoted above (from British historian Paul Johnson) is a generally accurate one. Having studied the evolution of this whole affair within the U.N., I have finally realized that, for most nations, the U.N. is not a place of admirable principles and the pursuit of justice, but a place for deal-making and attempting to gain advantages (especially commodities and cash). On top of this, the governments (or leaders) of some nations that possess a veto are quite corrupt. The U.N. appears to have become nothing but a place where international officials can exchange ideas and form partnerships, but not a place in which all the nations collectively can produce meaningful, binding, enforceable "resolutions."

When I posted a week ago, I stated that certain Church officials cannot try "to place a final pre-judgment (of 'good' or 'evil') on certain future acts that are being contemplated by an allicance of at least 35 nations (including the U.S.)."

As so often happens to me, my words were carelessly read by the sarcastic person here calling himself "Open Minded Otherwise" [OMO], who replied:
"... allicance [sic] ... Try: the US and GB, acting alone."
I'm not sure if this was a way of accusing me of lying -- that I would refer to 35 nations when there is no such number -- or if this was a way of saying that the invading armed forces will be those of the U.S. and Britain only. Either way, OMO is wrong. (And nastily flippant too, since he should have known that my "allicance" for "alliance" was just a "typo" that he should have ignored, instead of inserting "sic.")
[By the way, OMO, since January 7, this forum has had a rule that requires you to choose to post under one and only one name or alias. I have noticed that you are breaking this rule by using several aliases on various threads. Please stop doing this and choose one name or alias. (I have not yet been able to determine if you are Kiwi or Emerald, but the former seems more likely.)]
As I started to say ... Either way, OMO is wrong. First, the list of more the 35 allied nations has been shown on TV -- so it is a reality. Second, more nations than just the U.S. and G.B. will supply soldiers, vehicles, and weapons -- just as was true in 1991. Third, the remainder of the 35 nations will support the effort in less conspicuous, but material ways.

Later OMO wrote: "Good Catholics will prefer the Pope's opinion to that of any historian when it comes to matters of CATHOLIC MORALITY, not matter how unpalatable it might seem."

That is true, when the contentious subject really is "Catholic morality." Here, however, the historian is not writing about "morality," but about the usefulness and viability of the U.N.. The pope's opinions about this are expressed on the basis of an "ideal U.N.," and I would agree with him if such an animal existed (or even a reasonable facsimile thereof). But the fact is that not even a shadow of the "ideal U.N." exists, as I have just come to realize. Thus, since the disagreement is not on a matter of morality, I must accept the historian's factual description instead of the pope's idealistic vision.

Then OMO went after Joe, saying: "so the Pope's got the evidential burden then?"
Since the final, prudential decision is in the hands of national leaders (not the pope), the pope is not obliged to explain his opinion in detail -- though it certainly would be helpful to millions of people (including Joe, Hollis, and me) if he would. Without a detailed explanation of why he takes his position, he will not succeed in persuading many of the decision-makers (not to mention many of the thoughtful rank-and-file), in my opinion.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2003.

[Clarification: I just got through stating that I wasn't sure if OMO could be Kiwi or Emerald. As I was writing that long post, "Emerald" (ironically) posted his message. I did not see it until after I had submitted my own. I should have known that OMO could not be Emerald. I should have realized that Emerald would not have defended the pope as OMO has done.]
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2003.

My arrogant hypocracy affords me more patience than one might expect.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), March 16, 2003.

John,

You seem to be equating the pope's stating that the US should go through the UN with his concluding the US going to war against Iraq does not qualify as just when explaining that this isn't something that requires consent of Catholics.

On the surface, I certainly can't see how this is something binding, but the reason I stated some doubt is that I raised some question in the email forum started by Chris Butler, and he replied with a long response with several quotes from the popes of the past which seemed to make the case that this could be something binding. But, to be honest, I just quickly glanced at his response because I was pretty busy at the time. Let me go back and review (when/if I get a chance).

But at any rate, I'm not going to go against the pope unless I research more. But on this matter I'm not call to make any moral decision that would possibly go against what the pope is stating, so I don't have it as a top priority. But I will get to it eventually.

As stated previously, my desire with this post was to try to find some reasonable explanation behind the pope's statements on the importance of the UN. The only thing I've heard is that he's basing this on an "ideal UN." But on that basis, he'd be promoting communism. In an ideal world with ideal people, communism (minus the atheism) should be recommended. But in our world, it never has and never will work. And I really find it hard to believe that is not the same case with the UN.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 16, 2003.

John, the pope is not defending an "ideal UN", he is supporting this very UN that exists! Where did you find this weird idea?

I think it extremely arrogant to think that you know more about the UN than the pope, or even Paul Johnson for that matter. After all, nor you neither Paul Johnson have ambassadors to the UN, as the pope has. You are charging the pope of idealistic naiveté, something at the same time disconnected from reality (the pope being naïve and not knowing what the UN is all about) and discourteous to the pope, to say the least. You are twisting all arguments in a way that you can go on opposing our pope and continuing to appear a bastion of Catholic Orthodoxy. And I haven’t heard that Paul Johnson has had a private revelation that he is the Holy Ghost appointee to judge the usefulness of the UN to the Church aims. Perhaps it was you who had that private revelation?

As for your interpretation of the CCC expression "those who have responsibility for the common good", your interpretation of the pope "just giving his personal opinion" and that of "Bush having the secret information that the pope does not have", all these allegations were many many times refuted by Chris Butler, Kiwi, Gordon and me, besides others. You never cared to respond to them, but you keep coming here with this *personal* interpretation of yours as if they were obvious, matter-of-fact widespread truths. As I have already said, nothing could be farther from truth, beginning with the fact that the pope clearly is interpreting the CCC in a way that is opposite to yours. It is only *your* interpretation, and I might add that you are not in position to say that your interpretation of the CCC is more authoritative than that of the pope, I’m afraid.

I will not repeat here all those arguments, as you were not kind enough to respond to them before. Anyway, as I said, I have no time nowadays to keep discussing these things here, so you will have the last voice after all.

I am only posting this response because many people here look at you as a knowledgeable adviser on catholic things, which has been true until now (and still is, when the issue at hand is not something in which the Republican party is opposed to Church Teaching; in these cases, you often goes with the Reps, and seems to forget Catholic Social Teaching). But now, IMHO, you are doing a poor figure here, choosing to oppose the pope and put your political allegiance to the Republican Party before your Faith. Chris Buttler, as Hollis has well remembered, has shattered into very little pieces this argument of the pope being only “giving his personal opinion” (which, it is obvious, is not what the pope thinks he is doing, given the enormous effort he is making to avoid this war, the tone of his speeches and of those of his closest aides speaking in his name, and the fact that he sees himself here as applying Catholic Moral to a concrete situation, which, of course, *is* his job; this has become his number one priority now, just read Osservatore Romano and Civiltá Cattolica).

Emerald was keen enough to perceive this change, expressing his observation that the pope’s “opinions” are not so relevant to some catholics after all, if they go against their political faith, which obviously is coming before their religious faith in this case. Your arguments are going remarkably similar to those that Traditionalists themselves use to support that Vatican II, the New Mass etc. are “not infallible”. As they got used to hear arguments about ordinary Magisterium etc. they cannot see the difference between what they claim and that of what those who contest the Traditionalists here are doing now to support the war. It seems to them a double standard and, you bet, it is! So, what you are doing is to give force to the Traditionalist position, something very well pointed to by Emerald. I was surprised to see his comment, since most Traditionalists are very right-wing politically, and supposedly prone to support this war as well, and so would theoretically silence about this issue. But Emerald is different.

Hollis, the Vatican has been explaining “why the UN” abundantly. If only you read daily the EWTN website news as I do, you would have this question of yours answered many times. Try the Osservatore Romano as well. The pope is not asking blind faith at all, he and his aides are explaining all the issue. And they are giving alternatives too, contrary to what Joe Stong keeps repeating here. If people do not make the effort to read what the Vatican is writing, how can they claim that “the Vatican does not explain” or “the Vatican does not gives alternatives”? It seems to me that these people have locked their minds to support this war and either refuse to read what the pope and the cardinals are saying (ignorance is bliss) or they are so blinded and impervious to reasoning that they read and cannot understand.

To most people in the world, the pope’s reasons are extremely easy to understand. They are based on our Faith, common sense and elementary political science. Why is it so difficult to some people to understand?

Hollis, when you said that I play safe by being with the pope, you could not be more correct. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this cannot be said about you, John and Joe, besides others.

Your desire to understand why the pope is acting as he does is just, but even if you cannot understand his position, you should humbly admit that it is more probable that he is right and you are wrong, and not the other way around. I think it is much more difficult to understand the Church position on artificial contraception (to use the example you gave) that the Church’s opposition to this war and, nevertheless, all Catholics are required to assent even if they fail to understand. But to understand the pope´s position in this issue, all that is needed is a quick study of international law, international relations, recent history and political science. Many very sound analyses are appearing every day in the major media outlets (including in the US) explaining why this war is a poor choice from an international economical, social and political point of view. Just read them, and you will know why the pope is saying what he says. Are there good analyses supporting the war too? Very well, but the pope is against the war, so you would do better reading the arguments against it, so as to have a glimpse of the pope’s mind about the “secular” reasons why this war should not be waged, at least the way Bush wants it to be waged.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 16, 2003.

John wrote:

“Thus, since the disagreement is not on a matter of morality, I must accept the historian's factual description instead of the pope's idealistic vision.´

Here, you being at the same time disrespectful to the pope (to say the least) and showing very poor theology.

The pope, an idealist? From what planet did you come? Do you think the pope does not know what the UN is? Was it you, John, that organized the pro-life effort at the Cairo and Beijing Conferences? Or was it John Paul? Do you or Paul Johnson have an ambassador to the UN? Do you or Paul Johnson receive all political leaders of the world every day, those who compose the UN?

Are you so fanatical about this war as to go so far as insulting the pope?

How can you say that “the disagreement is not on a matter of morality”? Do you think that catholic morality is restricted to the third, sixth and ninth commandments? Do you think that an immoral war is not a “matter of morality”? If so, why Bush and his supporter in this forum are so eager to justify this war on moral grounds? Where is your coherence? Do you think that the morality of this war is irrelevant from the catholic moral point of view? Do you think the pope has no authority to interpret the Catholic Moral Teaching and apply it to concrete questions? Do you think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz and Rove are the God appointed interpreters of the CATHOLIC just war theory? Wow! They are not even catholics! (To say nothing about their extremely questionable biographies)

WAR IS NOT A MATTER OF MORALITY??? ARE YOU KIDDING OR WHAT???

John., I pray to God that he cast his Light upon you and other catholics who are entering the very dangerous path of dissent, denying the pope his authority to teach what is moral and what is not. I am not recognizing you!

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 16, 2003.

The pope, supporting the UN against your precious historian, IS APPLYING MORAL JUDGEMENT. To say that the pope is “idealizing” the UN is to call him naïve at least, and incapable of making moral judgments about institutions at worst.

So, if he is saying that the war is immoral unless the UN approves it (besides other requirements), to stick with the historian’s opinion and dismiss the pope’s “opinion” as “idealistic” IS TO DISAGREE WITH THE POPE ON A MORAL MATTER!!! If the pope supports the UN, despite its flaws, and sees it as a viable and useful institution, from a Catholic Morality standpoint, who are you to disagree?

The morality of a position can be seen by its logical consequences. You are saying that the pope’s view is “idealistic”. What follows is that the pope does not know what the UN is all about. So, we can disagree with him on this issue. So, as I can “morally” disagree with the pope and believe that the UN is useless, it follows that I may support Bush in his war without UN approval.

That’s your logic. And, of course, it is obviously flawed.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 16, 2003.

Not even Bush´s own church supportis his war:

(from The New York Times website)

----------

George W. Bush is turning out to be one of the most openly religious presidents in American history. He prays daily. He delivers speeches and national radio broadcasts that sound like sermons. He oversees a White House full of Bible study groups. Most important, he favors lowering the barriers between church and state by giving government money to religious charities.

But in recent weeks, the leaders of the many mainline American churches opposed to a war with Iraq — including the president's own church, the United Methodist — have grown frustrated that they have not been able to see Mr. Bush to express their anxieties. The group represents nearly every faith and denomination, including Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists and mainstream evangelicals. The Southern Baptist Convention, conservative evangelicals and some Pentecostal leaders are supporting the president, while Jewish leaders are divided.

whole article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/national/10LETT.html

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 16, 2003.

Here´s what the pope said today:

John Paul also said he wanted to remind U.N. member countries, and especially those which make up the Security Council, that ``the use of force represents the last resort, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, according to the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter.''

``That is why, in the face of the tremendous consequences that an international military operation would have for the population of Iraq and for the equilibrium of the entire Middle East reason, already so tried, as well as for the extremism which could stem from it, I say to all: There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace.''

link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Pope-Iraq.html

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 16, 2003.

Atila,

I have to admit, it's hard to continue this discussion. It seems (I could be wrong) that your primary motivation in life is just to accuse others of being wrong, for you make accusations that are in no way based in facts.

Let me keep it real simple for you.

- I never said the pope was wrong. - I never said the pope was idealizing the UN. - My statement is that I find it hard to understand why the pope is placing so much importance/authority to the UN when history (past and current) show this group to be so inept and corrupt. - Someone gave me an explanation that mabye the pope was in favor of an ideal UN. - I provided the quote from the (in no way beloved to me) British historian to add fuel for the discussion. I never stated that I agreed or disagreed (although it is obvious that he solidifies my concerns about the UN). - I have NOT made any moral judgement in this matter. I do have a "doubtful conscience" in this matter - i.e. I do not think that the pope's stand that military action against Iraq is not justified or his requirement to go through the UN may are binding upon Catholics for their consent. But I could be wrong. Since one is not allowed to act on a doubtful conscience, I would need to seek to remove the doubt and obtain moral certainty if I had to make the dicision to go to war or to go against the pope's request to go through the UN. But I'm not in that position at this moment (nor any time soon), so I have no urgent need to remove the uncertainty I have in this matter. (BTW, your arguments have not helped one bit in proving that this is something binding to Catholics.) But the primary objective for starting this thread was to help me surface the facts in the matter to help me in properly forming my conscience in the event I am asked to elaborate on this matter in the youth Bible Study or RCIA classes in my parish.

I CERTAINLY would not state my doubts to those groups as I am doing here, but rather would stay on the more certain ground of simply quoting the pope FIRST (and foremost) and then following it with some other points to consider on this matter.

I agree that "falling" to the right is just as bad as falling to the left. Satan tries to get us to fall any direction he can. I am also aware that I am not above falling prey to the "roaring lion looking for someone to devour." But please provide some FACTS to make your case, not simply throwing out baseless accusations. I am certainly interested in understanding the facts and resons that you can articulate for showing me to be in error on this matter - i.e. show me that the UN is worthy of trust (not just because the pope thinks this) and/or that the pope's stance on this matter is binding to Catholics.

God bless,

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 17, 2003.

I also saw the Holy Father - God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired in his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he was falling asleep He often fainted and seemed to be dying. But when he was praying, he was often comforted by apparitions from Heaven. Then, his head was erect, but as soon as it dropped again onto his chest, I saw a number of people looking quickly right and left, that is, in the direction of the world.

Ven Anne Catherine Emmerich, 1820.

Sound remotely familiar?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

Hollis, I think that you have misunderstood my post.

I understood very well your concerns and said that they were just.

My words about the idealization of the UN were directed to John. Just scroll up and you will see that clearly. When I addressed you, I put your name explicitly before. The same goes with John. It was John who was saying that the pope is idealizing the UN, not you. Perhaps you didn’t read John’s posts?

I found your postings expressing these doubts very acceptable. What made my blood boil was John’s well known attitude of posting his personal opinions here as if they were Defined Dogma, as in the case of his superior and patronizing way of saying that the pope is only giving his “personal opinion”, as if the pope was saying something like “well, since you asked, I think that this war is immoral”, between two sips from a beer mug. The same goes for his interpretation of the CCC, in which nowhere is to be found that “those who are responsible for the common good refers only to “secular civil governments”, as he puts it, and that religious authority is excluded. The things that John comes here to state as matter-of-fact are highly debatable, and some times just plain wrong. As John is a (deservingly) highly heard voice here, it is his responsibility not to mix Catholic Doctrine with his personal opinions and interpretations, for many people here who look at him as a secure reference for our faith may be mislead.

You never had that attitude and I praise you for that. You honestly aired your doubts and that’s fair.

I will quote here something I found yesterday, just to prove that I am being honest with you. I say that because it is something that is published in John Allen’s column in NCR. I say that because I am sure to be the target of bigotry by people who believe in the “shoot the messenger” attitude. They will come here to say “oh so bad that you quoted the NCR, a most heretic website etc.” Granted, they will never point to the supposed heresies in the excerpts I’ll be posting here. But as their attitude is “if you oppose this war then you are a radical liberal anti-American communist brainwashed heretical abortionist etc. etc. etc.”, just the fact of my quoting a (rather moderate) columnist of NCR is granted to give them the base for the ad hominem attacks they are so fond of. I could spare myself that annoyance simply pasting here the text and “forgetting” to mention the source, but this would not be honest.

Here’s it:

(quote begins)

“While in New York, I paid a courtesy call on Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the new Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations. I know Migliore from Rome, where he had served as the deputy to Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican’s foreign minister. In Italian migliore means “best,” and in this case the name fits. Most observers regard Migliore as among the most impressive members of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps.

In the present crisis, one of the Vatican’s core interests is defending the United Nations system, insisting that any use of force must be authorized by the U.N. before it could be legitimate. This is an area of contrast between the Vatican and much conservative political sentiment in the United States

While some Americans are leery of surrendering power to the U.N., not trusting it to promote American values or national interests, the Vatican believes in a reformed U.N. with real decision- making authority. John Paul II, in his message for the 2003 World Day of Peace, put it this way: “Is this not the time for all to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, truly capable of ensuring peace and harmony between peoples, as well as their integral development?”

In recent months, Vatican officials have offered three arguments in support of this view.

First, a strong U.N. could promote the common good on the global level, ensuring that global economic structures do not simply enrich elites at the expense of the rest of the world.

Second, a reformed U.N. would help ensure that strong nations do not simply impose their will on the weak. Tauran recently said that political leaders should seek to uphold “the force of law” rather than “the law of force.”

Third, Vatican officials believe that a U.N. committed to multilateral decision-making, in which small and medium-sized states have real possibilities to shape policy, would be less open to manipulation by powerful non-state actors such as corporations and NGOs (think Planned Parenthood, for example). The Vatican learned from the battles at the Cairo and Bejing conferences in the mid-1990s that sometimes its most serious opposition in the U.N. system comes not from states, but from representatives of civil society. Vatican officials argue that a U.N. in which states counted more and these special interests counted less would actually be more democratic.

For these reasons, Migliore finds himself in a key position to help realize the Vatican’s global vision, and it will be very interesting to watch how he attempts to promote U.N. reform in coming months.”

(end-quote)

link: http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/ (whole article)

Of course, the need to reform the UN is hardly news, but the pope is absolutely not saying, contrary to what John claims, that “an ideal UN” should approve this war. He is clearly saying (“shouting” would be more appropriate) that THIS UN must approve this war. I expect that you agree with me on that (that the pope is NOT refering to a non-existent ideal UN).

The UN, of course, is not the only institution that needs reform. The US Supreme Court and Brazilian Congress come to my mind. Nevertheless, nobody is suggesting that these institutions should be abolished or ignored. By the way, our Church is in bad shape in many places, and it does not occur to any faithful Catholic that the Church should be abolished or ignored. Seminary reform, for example, is a very urgent need, as is the requirement to block homosexuals from ordination.

I tend to agree with you that the Vatican could be more explicit in formulating why the UN should be supported. I think that, to people outside US (especially in Europe and Latin America), respect for the UN decisions is taken for granted. As I told you, this doubt you have hardly comes across the general public outside US. Perhaps that’s why the Vatican has not yet put forth something more pedagogical, which would clearly be a great help for Americans, since I understand that people at US are not so aware of the importance of the UN (this has sociological reasons that are outside the scope of this post).

Another possible reason is that the Vatican has not had time yet to develop that doctrine. You and I know very well that the Church moves in centuries, not at the pace of media cycles. I expect that, given the enormous consequences that this war will have (and the incredible damage to the UN system), the pope will in little time elaborate this (a new encyclical, perhaps?)

Anyway, I think you would be interested to know that respect for the UN and multilateralism is a no-brainer outside US. People simply think that this is pretty obvious and that it goes without saying. I see that this is not the case in the US. This somehow amazes me, because the UN was a US (Roosevelt) idea, aiming to be the arena to solve international conflicts and avoid war. This has been working fairly well until now, when Bush decided to go on the unilateral track and despise all kinds of international multilateral agreements (this war is just another piece of that attitude, which has been a hallmark of Bush administration – examples are Kyoto, the WTO, the Anti-nuclear weapons proliferation agreement, the International Penal Tribunal and so on). Although the pope recognizes the flaws of the UN system, he deems that to be better than a world where “international law” is reduced to the law of force.

I hope that helps a little.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

Atila,

Okay. Maybe I did misread. I apologize. Let me go through your last post and reply when I can.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 17, 2003.

Now, Hollis, lets go line by line:

You wrote:

“Atila,

I have to admit, it's hard to continue this discussion. It seems (I could be wrong) that your primary motivation in life is just to accuse others of being wrong, for you make accusations that are in no way based in facts. “

I assume you referred to what you said after that. I told you I was addressing John, not you.

You wrote:

“Let me keep it real simple for you.

I never said the pope was wrong. - I never said the pope was idealizing the UN.”

You didn’t, John explicitly did.

“My statement is that I find it hard to understand why the pope is placing so much importance/authority to the UN when history (past and current) show this group to be so inept and corrupt”

Although the UN is not perfect, I think this is an exaggeration. I see no more corruption in the UN as I see in US, Brazilian or European governments, for example. And the UN would be much more effective if it were not by US sabotage, as in the case of Israel. Being the strongest and richest country of the UN, the US has the power to select what they see fit among UN resolutions, for example.

.”Someone gave me an explanation that maybe the pope was in favor of an ideal UN. - I provided the quote from the (in no way beloved to me) British historian to add fuel for the discussion.”

That’s John theory (not yours), which I think is an insult to the pope. I mean, of course the pope wants the UN to be better, but to say that the pope “has an idealistic vision” of the UN (John’s words) is to ignore the most basic facts about the pope’s biography. It’s the kind of charge we are used to hearing from liberals (the naiveté and ignorance of the pope).

“I never stated that I agreed or disagreed (although it is obvious that he solidifies my concerns about the UN) . - I have NOT made any moral judgement in this matter.”

I never said you did, though John indeed explicitly stated his disagreement.

“I do have a "doubtful conscience" in this matter - i.e. I do not think that the pope's stand that military action against Iraq is not justified or his requirement to go through the UN may are binding upon Catholics for their consent. But I could be wrong.”

That’s fair.

“Since one is not allowed to act on a doubtful conscience, I would need to seek to remove the doubt and obtain moral certainty if I had to make the dicision to go to war or to go against the pope's request to go through the UN.”

Even fairer.

“But I'm not in that position at this moment (nor any time soon), so I have no urgent need to remove the uncertainty I have in this matter. “

That's ok, IMHO.

“(BTW, your arguments have not helped one bit in proving that this is something binding to Catholics.)”

I am sad about that. I think that the enormous effort and angst with which the pope is acting in this issue should be evidence enough that he is not talking lightly. As it obviously concerns a matter of morals, it is pretty clear to me that it falls under his Ordinary Magisterium, thus binding us.

“But the primary objective for starting this thread was to help me surface the facts in the matter to help me in properly forming my conscience in the event I am asked to elaborate on this matter in the youth Bible Study or RCIA classes in my parish. “

That’s a very good concern.

“I CERTAINLY would not state my doubts to those groups as I am doing here, but rather would stay on the more certain ground of simply quoting the pope FIRST (and foremost) and then following it with some other points to consider on this matter. “

I think it is a wise course of action, provided that you do not tell them that “well, this is just Karol Wojtila´s personal opinion, you are free to think whatever you like and even not considering what he is saying at all, if you wish; it’s just not infallible”, which is what John’s posts are implying. I imagine you can figure out the damage this could cause, with those youth coming to extrapolate that and come to think that everything that is "not infallible”, from the use of condoms to the validity of the New Mass, is open to wide disagreement, which is the way trodden by both liberals and traditionalists.

“I agree that "falling" to the right is just as bad as falling to the left. Satan tries to get us to fall any direction he can.”

That’s something I have been saying here for years. I am glad that you agree with me.

“I am also aware that I am not above falling prey to the "roaring lion looking for someone to devour." But please provide some FACTS to make your case, not simply throwing out baseless accusations.”

I don’t know what accusations you are talking about. Sorry.

“I am certainly interested in understanding the facts and resons that you can articulate for showing me to be in error on this matter - i.e. show me that the UN is worthy of trust (not just because the pope thinks this) and/or that the pope's stance on this matter is binding to Catholics. “

I tried to do so in my last post, but I do not know if you found the arguments (mine and of those I quoted) convincing. I do not defend “blind faith”. On the contrary, I many many times in the four years that I come to this forum tried to give “rational” explanations to Catholic Doctrine. But, of course, I may not be always successful. Anyway, our Faith tells us that we must submit even if we do not agree or understand, if that situation may arise.

To summarize my arguments:

- The pope thinks that a bad UN is better than no UN, and

- The pope is using his authority (speaking as pope, not as a private individual) about a moral matter; that seems to me to be a pretty clear case of a “binding” situation.

“God bless, “

God Bless you too!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

Atila,

Finally, someone provides something to back the pope's comments. Thanks!

You seem to be reading John's comments in a differnt way than I am, but I let him defend himself if he desires.

Regarding "those in charge of the common good" - this traditionally has meant those in charge of nations. The CCC isn't meant to be completely exhaustive and you sometimes need to look back and see how some of the teachings have been taught that are being summarized in the CCC. You could make the case that this does not exclude religious authorities, and I would tend to agree, but it certainly does not exclude (and probably is primarly referring to) leaders of countries. It is interesting to note on this matter that Archbishop Hannin (retired - New Orleans) does make the case that this does EXCLUDE religious authorites. He states the US (and other) bishops were speaking out of place when stating that the principles of a just war are not being met in this current matter. The US bishops, btw, made it clear that they were expressing their view in light of the information they had and that this was not binding to the faithful.

I can agree with the reasons given for why an organization like the UN is benefical, even necessary, in our world. But a LOT of reform is needed - to say the least. One could argue that a disbanning of this corrupt group and the forming of a new organization with the objectives listed by the Vatican might be a better way to accomplish this. But one could argue to the contrary also. But I did find the article you quoted quite useful. Thanks!

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 17, 2003.

Atila,

You must have posted your last posting while I was writing my reply. So much of my response is there, but two things:

- I agree 100% (and I thought I made it clear) that one must give full consent (or submission) of intellect and will to all the teachings on matters of faith and morals (infallibly defined or not) presented to the Catholic faithful to be believed - whether I have a good reasonable explanation for it or not.

- I detest so-called "modern theologians" who like to weasel their way out of stating that this or that teaching is not binding. So I CERTAINLY don't want to lead down that same path. But I still see a valid argument that this is not a binding matter. But until I'm certain, I will assume it is binding. When the US bishops made their declaration, they made it clear that it was not a binding teaching. The pope did not make such a statement, but I think the same reasoning they used to make this conclusion could be use to make the case that the pope's statements are also not binding.

What from history or Church teaching do you make the conclusion this is binding?

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 17, 2003.

Hollis, this should be a no brainer.

Your premise:

"- I agree 100% (and I thought I made it clear) that one must give full consent (or submission) of intellect and will to all the teachings on matters of faith and morals (infallibly defined or not) presented to the Catholic faithful to be believed - whether I have a good reasonable explanation for it or not."

Note part I bolded.

Now note the crux of the matter, concerning this war:

The question is whether it is a just war.

Make no mistake, this is a matter of morals.

Formulate the conclusion. If your premise is correct, you must therefore be against this war.

Otherwise, you have rationalized away your premise.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

Hi Hollis,

“Finally, someone provides something to back the pope's comments. Thanks! “

You are welcome!

“You seem to be reading John's comments in a differnt way than I am, but I let him defend himself if he desires. “

Perhaps I was harsh. But his insulting of the pope made my blood boil. Something that really makes me mad is people insulting the pope. Doubly so when the insult comes from a self-proclaimed faithful Catholic.

His last post on the other thread, which I just read, shows that he decided to resort to ad hominem attacks, and that he is very happy with the irruption of a war that the pope dedicated his Lenten Retreat to avoid. You see, the pope cries, John Gecik The Orthodox opens Champaign. That’s not the “orthodoxy” I was educated in. It is sad.

I do not know why he has been moderated out from this forum some time ago, but I imagine it may have something to do whit his self- righteous attitude. Anyway, he has been bashing me as “Liberal anti- American” since November at least, but was unable to show where I was wrong or where my ideas are “generally liberal” as he puts it. He resorted to lies about my, I wonder why. He says I am posting things unrelated to the Catholic Doctrine, when all I have been doing is to show how the pope is declaring this war immoral. All that I said was supported by Chris Butler and even enriched by his views. I wonder if John dares to call Chris Butler an “anti-American liberal”. Nay, it is much easier to bash a third-worlder like me. I challenge him to pick any thread where I said something unorthodox or against Church or the pope’s Teaching. At the same time, he poses self-righteously as an untouchable Champion of Faith in the same thread in which he explicitly claims to be a better interpreter of world affairs and Catholic Doctrine than the pope himself.

It’s sad. John has been a great contributor to this forum, helping many people to know better our faith. But now, faced with choice between the Pope and Bush, between his Faith and his secular political views, he decided for the latter.

“Regarding "those in charge of the common good" - this traditionally has meant those in charge of nations. The CCC isn't meant to be completely exhaustive and you sometimes need to look back and see how some of the teachings have been taught that are being summarized in the CCC. You could make the case that this does not exclude religious authorities, and I would tend to agree, but it certainly does not exclude (and probably is primarly referring to) leaders of countries.”

My view is that it is not in vain that the CCC, which words are very thoughtfully crafted, did not explicitly say that the secular governments are the sole or primary “responsible for the common good”. My view is that it is exactly unspecific to permit the interpretation that religious authorities CAN indeed be covered by that definition. The problem is that the just war doctrine must cover situations where the Vatican cannot be present (small conflicts in Africa, for example). But, when a worldwide conflict as this arises, the Church is not willing to give away her authority.

Anyway, the just war doctrine does not say that, provided that a government is legitimate, anything it decides is ok. By that theory, Hitler’s decision to start WWII would be ok, as he was legitimately elected in 1933. Much in Chris Butler’s way of thinking, the perfect application of the just war theory would only be possible in the context of a Catholic Monarchy, and then only if the Monarch were a wise and holy man. Bush is not Catholic and his aides have all kinds of personal interests and strange ideologies in this war. They cannot be counted as having the necessary “recta intentio” to decide about this alone.

It is evident from the pope’s recent actions and words that he sees himself as a legitimate actor in this conflict, and that he is not willing to give away his authority to Bush. He has been explicit about that many times. If it is true that the CCC can be interpreted in more that one way, I think it is obvious that the legitimate interpreter is the Supreme Pontiff. If the CCC wanted to restrict that authority only to the secular governments, it would explicitly say that. Clearly, the Holy Father does not see Bush as a wise enough leader to take that decision alone. Otherwise, he would not be directly stating that this war, in the present circumstances, is immoral. Even yesterday, he said that “there’s still time for peace”, directly contradicting Bush.

The argument that the pope does not have enough information does not hold water. If Bush had hard evidence about Iraq having WMD and being willing to use them immediately against US, he would obviously show that evidence to the pope and secure his support. That he didn’t is evidence enough that he has no evidence whatsoever. Can you imagine any kind of information proving that Saddam has and is about to use WMD that would be so secret as to be impossible to show to the pope? What could that be?

In fact, the pope has been repeatedly saying that it is Bush, not he, who lacks all the information. So, either the pope (1) is dumb, (2) is arrogant, (3) is lying (4) is an irresponsible man or (5) is naïve. I cannot accept any of these options.

“It is interesting to note on this matter that Archbishop Hannin (retired - New Orleans) does make the case that this does EXCLUDE religious authorites. He states the US (and other) bishops were speaking out of place when stating that the principles of a just war are not being met in this current matter. The US bishops, btw, made it clear that they were expressing their view in light of the information they had and that this was not binding to the faithful.”

Of course Bishops’ Conference declarations do not have the same weight of those of the pope. This is basic Ecclesiology. They were prudent saying that, but it is absolutely remarkable that the pope never worded his condemnation of this war in the same way. He pope never said that what his opposition to the war is not binding, a silence that speaks louder than words, especially considering this precedent.

“I can agree with the reasons given for why an organization like the UN is benefical, even necessary, in our world. But a LOT of reform is needed - to say the least. One could argue that a disbanning of this corrupt group and the forming of a new organization with the objectives listed by the Vatican might be a better way to accomplish this. But one could argue to the contrary also.”

I could agree with that, but it seems that the pope is wishing for the reform of this very institution, not the creation of a new one.

“But I did find the article you quoted quite useful. Thanks! “

I’m glad you liked it. You are welcome.

God bless you too!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

Hollis, we are writing at the same time, so our debate is becoming somehow truncated.

I have to go now, so I think we will eventually get in sync.

You said:

“- I agree 100% (and I thought I made it clear) that one must give full consent (or submission) of intellect and will to all the teachings on matters of faith and morals (infallibly defined or not) presented to the Catholic faithful to be believed - whether I have a good reasonable explanation for it or not. “

You made it perfectly clear; I only repeated that to make it clear to third parties possibly reading this thread.

“- I detest so-called "modern theologians" who like to weasel their way out of stating that this or that teaching is not binding. So I CERTAINLY don't want to lead down that same path.”

I could not agree more. Unfortunately, this is exactly the path John is treading.

“ But I still see a valid argument that this is not a binding matter. But until I'm certain, I will assume it is binding. When the US bishops made their declaration, they made it clear that it was not a binding teaching. The pope did not make such a statement, but I think the same reasoning they used to make this conclusion could be use to make the case that the pope's statements are also not binding. “

I addressed this point in my last post.

“What from history or Church teaching do you make the conclusion this is binding? “

My reasoning is exactly that of Emerald just above (thanks Emerald the Gray :-) Emerald put it succinctly and precisely. I can add no more. In fact, I agree with him that this a no-brainer.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

By the way, Emerald, your quote of Ven. Anne is amazing!

I looked at you LOTR site and liked it very much. I have some comments to do about some of your interpretations, but I do not have the time now. (For example, I interpret Elves as being "Men before the Fall", that is, what we would be had not our forefathers sinned.)

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 17, 2003.

Hey, I would love to hear it sometime Atila. It would be fun, even if we were in absolute opposition to each other, I would love to hear some feedback.

I know what you mean about musing about the pre-fall state in general; it's fascinating. But there's always that element of being "untested" in the pre-fall state, and it seems like God just manifested His own glory a thousandfold when the Evil One compromised and perverted God's creation. Plus the amazingness of the foreknowledge of God, and the fact the the Savior, the Word, was in the beginning with God, and was God. It is a mind blower.

I think that's what they mean by "Oh happy fault".

My unanswered question has always been this... how different is the state of being of the post-fall saved man in heaven with a resurrected body, as compared to the pre-fall Adam and Eve.

I have absolutely no clue. lol! It is a completely fascinating topic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

Geez, I derailed another thread. Sorry all; I need to shut up and get back onto Lent.

Mine is going lousy, how's everyone else's?

I haven't given up half of the things I had planned half as well as I should like, and I planned less than half of what I should have half as well as God deserves...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

half of a half of a loaf is better and it is still better than half of the half that is left.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

I may or may not agree with this coming war, but The United States is a sovereign nation and to hell with the U.N. They are a bunch of leeches, and should go home and get an honest job.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.

Atila,

You may be correct in your conclusions, but, honestly, you're not making that strong of a case.

I went back to my Inbox and found the email Chris Butler sent me regarding the need to give consent to the recent statements of the Holy Father regarding the war, which can also be applied to his statements on the UN.

I posted it in the Just War - or Not? thread since it was directly dealing with that matter. To read Chris' points, click here.

I give my response to Chris' points tomorrow.

Good night and God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 18, 2003.

Thanks for posting that message by Chris Butler on the other thread, Hollis.

I have put some comments there about it.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 18, 2003.

A good b-board post by Fr. Rutler:

Realism lacking in bishops' statements

President Bush's speech on March 17 was sober, forthright, and classical in its reasoning. On the same day, Prime Minister Blair delivered a speech in the House of Commons which stunned even policy opponents with its eloquence and intelligence. Contrast these with the statements of such as Archbishop Martino and Bishop Botean, not to mention the exit remarks of Cardinal Etchegary leaving Baghdad.

The Catholic Church is supposed to be the voice of cold reality in a world tossed by ill reasoning. I fear that after years of scandal, the Church has sacrificed her remnant credibility becaus of such hysteria and is about as significant in the world theatre as it was during the reign of Gregory XVI. It will take generations to undo the damage, which I think is largely the result of allowing an idealist personalist phenomenology to supplant a realist epistemology. We are scrambling to defend the unfairly maligned subtleties of Pius XII in World War II. Future generations will have a harder time defending these Curial voices. Cardinal Sodano has asked if Americans have learned nothing from Vietnam. He might be asked if the Vatican has learned nothing from World War II. I live in the shadow of the United Nations and wonder why the Holy See takes that sad institution more seriously than most of its own members do.

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 19, 2003.

Well, Hollis, this is Fr. Rutler’s opinion (who is he, by the way?)

He says:

“Future generations will have a harder time defending these Curial voices.”

How does he know that? Private revelation?

The fact is that the *present* generation is having a hard time to understand Bush’s reasons. I expect you are aware that almost everybody in the free world and something like 30% of Americans oppose this war and are not convinced by the White House. Mind you, the world does not begin and end in the USA.

I have no difficulty in understanding the Vatican position. And I DO have a difficult time in understanding Bush’s. I consider myself a sufficiently intelligent person. At least I am not illiterate, and I can read both types of arguments, in English, French, Spanish, Italian and even in Portuguese. And, quite frankly, I cannot see where is all that brilliance the above mentioned priest sees in Bush’s and Blair’s speeches. To use your own words, Hollis, the WH’s case is not that strong and really is not impressing anyone outside US: right or left, liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, gay, straight, feminist, chauvinist, religious, lay, deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, secularist, atheist, NOBODY! (And neither many Americans, by the way: 30% are not convinced).

I is so easy to insult “curial” Cardinals when one does not have the courage and the decency to say what they really think: that THE POPE is wrong, not realist, naïve, dumb etc. Of course, some people, who are not prepared to admit this even for themselves, try to endear the bizarre idea that the pope’s aides speak things that are different from what the pope thinks. That is, that the Vatican officials are giving “personal opinions” that are in contradiction with those of the pope. That way they think they can "disagree" with the Vatican without directly opposing the pope. That, of course, is a delirious notion.

This line of saying that the problem of the Church is its Curia, who controls a frail pope disconnected from reality, is one of the commonest coming from liberals. In fact, it is a favorite of people such as Fr. Andrew Greeley. Such as Emerald is amazed by what he has been reading here, I am amazed to se people like this Fr. Rutler (Who?), who probably claims to be “orthodox” to use the very same arguments that the Enemies of the Church have so well crafted and perfected for many years.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

BTW, the comment by that priest reflects almost verbatim that of Condoleeza Rice (the comparison between the alleged “silence” of Pius XII and Jon Paul’s position).

At that time, her remarks were regarded as extremely incompetent from a diplomatic point of view, and slammed by the whole international community.

As we see, catholics who chose to oppose the pope are not even being very original, drawing their ideas from official White House propaganda. And that’s the guy who thinks he is intelligent enough to lecture the pope on philosophy! Wow! As someone said here the other day: “The arrogance of it”. The line about epistemology is just plain rubbish. He probably put it there to try to “sophisticate” all the nonsense he is saying in the vain hope that someone might be impressed by this “high scholarship”.

That he links the pope’s credibility to the scandals shows how far his vision goes: 12 miles away from US coast. Few popes have had so much credibility as John Paul, especially considering the secularized state the world is in. Most non-Christians around the world call John Paul “the world’s moral conscience”, even when they are not willing to follow what he’s saying. And now his credibility is probably in an all-time high, precisely because he is opposing this war. “Church has sacrificed her remnant credibility”?! Duh… One more guy who thinks the world outside the US does not exist. Has this guy ever wondered why the Vatican is not located in Washington D.C.? I guess he did.

Frankly, Hollis, when you argue with your own arguments, you do much better that that (this is a compliment, it’s not irony and I mean so :-)

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Sorry, I assumed all knew of Fr. Rutler. He is a parish priest in New York who appears frequently on EWTN. He's a very articulate and knowledgeable philosopher and theologian.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Atila, You state:

To use your own words, Hollis, the WH’s case is not that strong and really is not impressing anyone outside US: right or left, liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, gay, straight, feminist, chauvinist, religious, lay, deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, secularist, atheist, NOBODY!

I don't really remember making that statement using those words. In addition, I believe now that a majority of the folks in the UK are now backing Tony Blair. You also have 45 countries (and growing) backing up Pres. Bush. Although this just expresses the stance of the leaders of these countries, many of the citizens from these countries (especially those countries that were once part of Soviet Russia) as well as many Iraqis within and outside of Iraq agree with the WH on this. I don't have ready access to latest polls or statistics to back up my point, but it is very obvious that your statement is false. You sound like a great guy and you may be drawing some correct conclusions, but many of your arguments are very weak (to put it kindly). They seem to be motivated from emotions (and possibly ulterior motives) and not backed up with facts or reason. God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

You said something like that about my attempts to explain why the pope supported the UN (my case not being that strong).

You are correct about UK. I just found a new poll saying 50% support Blair. But I do not think that number is that impressive. Some analysts are saying that Blair supporters grew after France’s stark opposition (UK and France’s rivalry being anthological).

In Italy and Spain the opposition is overwhelming, only to quote two other countries supporting the war.

Some numbers: (Gallup)

Netherlands: 52% opposition

Spain: 73% opposition

Ireland: 69% opposition

France: 61% opposition

Germany: 71% opposition

Switzerland: 90% opposition

Bulgaria: 62% opposition

Estonia: 59% opposition

Russia: 79% opposition

Yugoslavia: 73% opposition

Bosnia: 84% opposition

India: 62% opposition

Australia: 42% opposition (one for you)

New Zealand: 51% opposition

Pakistan: 64% opposition

South Africa: 68% opposition

Argentina: 89% opposition

Uruguay: 84% opposition

Brazil: I am yet to find anybody who supports this war!

An on and on and on…

I did not choose the countries with the highest rates of opposition, but those that in my personal interpretation are the most relevant.

“The survey results show that approximately half of the citizens in the world are not in favor of military action against Iraq under any circumstances.” (i.e. even with UN approval).

And if you add those people who would only support the war with UN sanction, these numbers are even higher (something close to 80% in a visual tally made by me).

You said:

“I don't have ready access to latest polls or statistics to back up my point, but it is very obvious that your statement is false.”

Obvious? It is not very friendly (or intelligent) of yours to come charging me of falsehood without data to support your accusations.

Now, Hollis, who is being “motivated from emotions (and possibly ulterior motives) and not backed up with facts or reason” ?

You should do some research before making such charges on me. What those “ulterior motives” might be, pray? What are you trying to insinuate?

God Bless!

P.S. That priest you quoted can even be “articulate and knowledgeable philosopher and theologian.”, but I doubt he is a better philosopher / theologian than the pope, which is the obvious target of his charge (the personalist phenomenology in known to have been used by the pope). Even if he is, he does not have papal assistance from the Holy Ghost. He should be a bit more humble, like you and all who are opposing the pope.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

About Iraqi people... Well I really don't have a statistic (do you?), but I think it difficult to conceive people wanting bombs falling in their heads. Iraqi people outside Iraq may very well support it, of course, especially political refugees.

At any rate, the bishop of Baghdad almost begged the US not to invade Iraq. I cannot go so far as to say that his views represents that of everybody there, but given that his Christian flock is a minority "tolerated" there, I expect that they must suffer more under Saddam that the average Muslim Iraqi. Then, if even so their bishop opposes invasion, to believe that most people there support being invaded is for me more that the acceptable dose of wishful thinking.

If you are willing to come here impolitely repeating that my arguments are weak, you’d better come with more data and more credible arguments.

By the way, some of you war-supporters in this site one day come with the theory that the pope opposes this war to protect Catholics in Iraq; on the next day, you come claiming that Iraqi Catholics will support this war because they know they will be better off without Saddam.

I get confused…

First, how do you know all these things?

Then, you guys should agree between yourselves. After all, what is the truth? Is it that the pope opposes the war to protect Iraqi Catholics against their own will to be invaded and freed from Saddam?

This is coherence!

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

About Iraqi people - it's also hard to believe people want to continue to live under the horrenous mad man they have been living under for so many years.

Here's a recent quote from NYTimes (very liberal/anit- Bush source) reporter in Bagdad:

Newly emboldened Iraqis are revealing to the few reporters left in Baghdad that they see America's military action as their moment of liberation.

"Along with all of this apprehension," said Burns, "Americans should know that there also is a good deal of anticipation. Iraqis have suffered beyond, I think, the common understanding in the United States from the repression of the past 30 years."

PBS's Gwen Ifill asked Burns to clarify: "They are actually eagerly anticipating war?"

"It's very hard for anybody to understand this," he said. "It can only be understood in terms of the depth of repression here."

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Did I say that people liked to live under Saddam? Did I say that every single Iraqi opposed this war?

Anyway, here’s what one of their bishops says:

“Iraq's Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni of Baghdad appealed to world leaders to prevent a war in his country, warning of the consequences to a civilian population that has already suffered under 12 years of economic sanctions. He suggested that Iraq's oil reserves were the real reason for Western moves against the country.”

http://www.dio.org/catholictimes/archive/030202/feature1.htm

We do not have statistics, so it will be difficult to know what is the biggest camp. If this war ends quickly and few people die, they will probably be happy. Otherwise…

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Atila,

You stated: Did I say that every Iraqi opposed the war?

Not exactly, but you specifically used the word NOBODY [your emphasis] to describe those who agree with the WH on this matter. Your statistics prove you wrong on many accounts. They should all be 100% for your statement to be true.

But the bottom line is that this discussion is going nowhere. I still stand by my statement that you have a lot of energy and enthusiasm on this topic, but you don't do a very good job of making a case for your stance. So let's call it quits. I'll continue to read up on this topic and try to properly form my conscience.

I still believe a case can be made that this action lead by US and UK and backed by many countries and many people around the world to take SH out of power and to disarm Iraq does meet the just norm criteria.

I also agree that the Vatican doesn't seem to think this and some can take the information that they have (or lack thereof and/or misinformation) and can conclude this does not meet the criteria of a just war.

[Those arguments that state that Pres. Bush is doing this just for the oil, to get back at Saddam for his dad, that this is a unilateral act by the US, etc... obviously fit in the misinformation category and show a true bias (hatred of Bush and/or US and/or capitalism) which is quite rampant and widely repeated by many news organizations despite the facts (which they fail to report) which contradict this. It is because of this misinformation and obvious bias that I'm hesitant to side with the anti-war (actually anti-Bush in most cases) folks. But I do want to side with the Vatican, so that's why I'm struggling with this issue. My "gut" tells me the Vatican is not being realistic (e.g. more talk with SH is going to bring about disarmament) and is promoting "no war at any expense" which I can't agree with. But my "gut" certainly could be wrong and if this is truly binding to the faithful (which I still don't believe it is), I will certainly give submission of intellect and will to this matter.]

But all can agree that we need to pray for peace - true and lasting - and for a quick resolve to the current situation as well as to pray that those plotting to do evil to other countries and individuals be stopped from carrying out their evil plans. May those reponsible for the common good have both the wisdom and resolve to make this happen!

So let's leave it at that! (Go ahead and have the last word if you like.)

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Last one to leave, turn of the italics.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

Sorry! I need some oil on the "/" key. Unless I really thump it hard, it doesn't show up! I apologize, yet again!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Hollis:

“Not exactly, but you specifically used the word NOBODY [your emphasis] to describe those who agree with the WH on this matter. Your statistics prove you wrong on many accounts. They should all be 100% for your statement to be true. “

Your point being, pray? That you will begin to try to catch me because of my figures of speech? Or are you not able to recognize a hyperbole?

“But the bottom line is that this discussion is going nowhere. I still stand by my statement that you have a lot of energy and enthusiasm on this topic, but you don't do a very good job of making a case for your stance. So let's call it quits. I'll continue to read up on this topic and try to properly form my conscience. “

Well, I can say the same about your own case. Anyway, my case is that of the pope, so IMHO you should take care. And, as my statistics show very well (unless you are absolutely blocked to glaring evidence), YOU (or Bush) “don't do a very good job of making a case for your stance”, despite months and months of enormous effort. I think it was Kiwi who posted here something about everybody quickly recognizing a just war when they see it. You could perhaps read that again.

“I still believe a case can be made that this action lead by US and UK and backed by many countries and many people around the world to take SH out of power and to disarm Iraq does meet the just norm criteria. “

Not so many countries after all. One sending soldiers (besides the two you cited), 27 helping with logistics (?), 15 not even having the courage to appear (do they really exist?). There are almost 200 countries in the world, if I am not mistaken, and many of those countries’ support are only government support, against the opposition of the overwhelming majority of their people (think of Italy and Spain). Those many people… well they may be “many” in absolute numbers, but in proportion… Not really impressive, at least for me. Anyway, as Joe put it, majority does not make truth, so the most important thing here is the pope and the bishops.

And, of course, it remains to be demonstrated that those two first criteria for a just war are met.

“I also agree that the Vatican doesn't seem to think this and some can take the information that they have (or lack thereof and/or misinformation) and can conclude this does not meet the criteria of a just war. “

Again, it remains to be demonstrated what this misinformation could be that, corrected, could move the Vatican to think otherwise.

“[Those arguments that state that Pres. Bush is doing this just for the oil, to get back at Saddam for his dad, that this is a unilateral act by the US, etc... obviously fit in the misinformation category and show a true bias (hatred of Bush and/or US and/or capitalism) which is quite rampant and widely repeated by many news organizations despite the facts (which they fail to report) which contradict this. It is because of this misinformation and obvious bias that I'm hesitant to side with the anti-war (actually anti-Bush in most cases) folks. But I do want to side with the Vatican, so that's why I'm struggling with this issue. My "gut" tells me the Vatican is not being realistic (e.g. more talk with SH is going to bring about disarmament) and is promoting "no war at any expense" which I can't agree with. But my "gut" certainly could be wrong and if this is truly binding to the faithful (which I still don't believe it is), I will certainly give submission of intellect and will to this matter.] “

That’s fair, although I do not agree with everything you are saying. In fact, I think it is you who is being idealistic in thinking that governments – all governments, all parties – wage war solely out of high moral principles. This is just not the way the world works, and you seem to be old enough to know better. This is an error that the Vatican surely does not commit, I can assure you. Let me recall to you that many of those arguments were posted here by Chris Butler, hardly a leftist anti-American bigot or a naïve person who does not check out his sources.

“But all can agree that we need to pray for peace - true and lasting - and for a quick resolve to the current situation as well as to pray that those plotting to do evil to other countries and individuals be stopped from carrying out their evil plans. May those reponsible for the common good have both the wisdom and resolve to make this happen! “

We are together in this. But for this to come true, the US must do some homework too, beginning with a serious effort to solve the Palestinian situation.

“So let's leave it at that! (Go ahead and have the last word if you like.) God bless! “

At your service! God Bless

(Emerald, I do not know how to do that)

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Just for clarity regarding my case being weak - I was never trying to make the case that this is a just war. I'm seeking someone to make the case one way or the other with facts (not hyperboles). But this post was about the UN and has spilled over to the other post of Just War or Not.

Okay. This really is the last time for me (but since this is a post on the UN, "really the last time" doesn't really mean too much. ;-)

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 20, 2003.

Well, Hollis, if you go so far as to dismiss an enormous list of statistics as “non-fact” for the sake of the style or writing of a non-native… I really may not have much hope about your openness to argumentation.

Anyway, I have spent too much time here and I am neglecting important things to do.

And, when I come to think of it, I think I am being naïve and arrogant at the same time if I expect to convince faithful catholics who are not willing to hear the pope himself.

I think my frustration is a small hint to that being felt by the pope.

What remains is… to pray.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Atila,

Okay. I only have 17 "last chances" to end this. But since you seem to favor the thinking of Hans Blix, France, and others, I have yet an infinite number of "last chances", so I don't feel so bad about going against my claim to be the last post.

I never claimed your statics were not facts. I actually used them to make my case that your claims were wrong. You can use your statics to conclude that millions of people do agree with the WH. But, any way, that has nothing to do with my point. Go to these same countries and poll them on whether abortion is something that should be outlawed or not and you'll probably see similar numbers. Does that make abortion moral? This perfectly makes my point, Atila. You don't have the knack of presenting reasonable and convincing arguments to make your case. You spout out a lot of things, but it isn't a consistent, logical argument. (But I do have to compliment you that you don't fit the category of those who just spit out anti- Bush rhetoric and misinformation generated by many far-left media sources who are taking advantage of this situation to spread their propoganda. And you agree with the pope - so I certainly compliment you for that!)

I'm not making a logical, consistent case either, but as mentioned, that's not my goal with this post. I also am not going to try to talk you out of your position, because it certainly is a proper stance for a Catholic (duh! - you agree with the pope!). On the other hand, the more I study this, the more secure I am with my stance that, under certain circumstances, this could be considered to meet the criteria of a just war (click here if you want the logical, consistent agrument). There are some subjective elements in interpreting information being presented to us and how these should be applied. There are also some "what if" scenarios that could be used to give the benefit of the doubt to those leading up this coalition to disarm SH (e.g. what if they had a plan to take out only SH and other top military leaders and convince the rest of the military to surrender, what if they had some weapons that could conquer the Iraqi military with no casualties, ....). This is why I can go against Chris Butler's argument that Catholics are obligied to consent with the Holy Father on his stance on this matter. I think this consent would apply after the fact, when you know exactly what action was taken by the US to disarm SH and how the principal of proportionality would apply to this particular case.

But this has nothing to do with the UN which this post is about. So I'll continue posts on Just War - or Not? in that thread.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.

My last point is that this is an extremely complex situation, and nobody can claim to have all the relevant information and the wisdom to correctly interpret it.

That is one of the reasons Our Lord gave us the Gift of the Church: so that we, fallible, ignorant a sinning Christians may know what to believe and to think when such complex situations arise. That’ s the sadness about Protestants: by their “direct connection” with God and their “free interpretation” of Scripture, they don’t know what to think when complex situations (like contraception) arise. They become divided and nobody is sure to be following God’s Will.

That’s not the case with us Catholics. Our Lord, knowing how fallible and ignorant we are, gave us the Church, so that, when our reason is not able to decide what’s good and what’s evil, His Will may still be clearly known, so that we may thread the paths of Justice, avoid sin stemming from an ill-formed conscience, and eventually going to Heaven. Only the pope and the bishops were promised by Christ to have His direct assistance (“He who hears you, hears me”). This is our Faith. Our intellects are just not that good. Non-Catholics may think it is dumb to believe in such a thing, but it is nonetheless what we believe. The world has become so secularized and “rationalized” that even us Catholics have become all too prone to forget this High Truth, tending to reject the Pope’s teaching when we have difficulty in rationally understanding it. This is especially a great temptation to intelligent people, who are accustomed to understand (or at least think they understand) almost everything.

Morality of acts is not to be assessed in hindsight only. It must be assessed before action. If it were otherwise, we would commit many more sins than we already commit. There’s no such thing as “do something and assess its morality after the fact” in Catholic Moral Theology. I am sure you will agree with me that this would be a disaster. If US troops act humanely and according to the Geneva Convention (something which can be doubted given their track record), this war will have been less immoral, but still immoral nevertheless. The benefit of doubt, by Law and Catholic Moral, is to be given to the accused, not to the aggressors (the Vatican called this war “aggression”, it’s not me who chose this word). There are risks involved. Your scenarios are wishful thinking, and you know it. It’s the same as to say that a woman takes a contraceptive pill (possibly abortive) and, after the fact, she discovers that she had not conceived; and then, she did not commit an abortion after all. Anyway, the Church did not say that there were scenarios in which this war would be moral in the present circumstances. She didn’t leave any back door.

I think it is a tragedy that we Catholics may reject such a Rich Gift from God, His Mystic Body, given us, between other reasons, to illuminate us when things get so complicated that we cannot see all sides of it. In such times, the Church comes stating clearly where Good and Evil are, so that we can know God’s Will with no doubt. To remain in doubt is to ignore God’s Gift.

God Bless and let’s pray that this war ends soon with the least loss possible.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003.

Atila,

You're missing the point (again).

No one is saying that moral acts can be judged only in hindsight. The Church has the gift of being able to proclaim the truths of the faith - the OBJECTIVE norms for faith and morals. But the Church does not necessarily have this gift of infallability when it comes to the SUBJECTIVE aspect of a moral act, especially if it is an act in the future.

I already gave an example, but let me elaborate on this again. What if Pres. Bush, PM Tony Blair and their militaries had a secret strategy and/or secret weapons that could completely defeat the Iraqi army without the loss of any life or property, and that this was going to be used only to disarm Iraq from banned weapons and to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. So unless the Vactian was absolutely, positively sure that such a plan or weapon was not available (which does NOT fall under the charism given to the Church on teaching matters of faith and morals), or that the action of disarming Iraq and/or overthrowing SH was an immoral act within itself, the pope could not with certainty (and certainly not with infallibility on the first point) declare the future action of the coalition forces was per se immoral.

Yes, the Magisterium is a beacon of light in the muck and confusion (and moral relativism) of our time. And we need to be thankful that we can know for certainty the objective principles on which to form our conscience. But the Church will not be able (nor is it intended to) take the place of individuals, with the help of a well-formed conscience), appling the objective norms to particular situations. It is the gift of conscience (guided by the Holy Spirit) which comes in to play in the subjective realm, NOT the gift of infallability of the Magisterium.

This is irrefutable Catholic teaching. If you want me to do the research to prove this, I may take you up on it (if I can find the time). But this is one thing that I do recall with certitude from my 8+ years of philosphical/theological studies in Rome and here in the US.

In summary/review: The Holy Spirit works through the Church to provide us with the proper material to conform our consciences to the objective truth. The Holy Spirit then works through the consciences of individuals (via gift of Prudence) to properly apply the objective norms to particular (subjective) and concrete situations. The gift of Prudence, not infallability, is what is at work in the subjective realm.

So if you want to submit to infallible teaching, I tip my hat to you. This is certain and infallible teaching to which you can submit.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 21, 2003.

Jmj

Due to more pressing matters, I have been away from this thread since my last post on March 15. Coming here today and reading what was subsequently posted was a rather astounding experience. I have decided to make just a couple of comments, though.

(1) Everyone interested in the subject of the conflict in Iraq should read Joe Stong's masterful message posted on March 21 on this thread.

(2) Hello, Hollis. I'd like to respond to two things you said to me, above, several days ago:

----- (a) "You seem to be equating the pope's stating that the U.S. should go through the U.N. with his concluding the U.S. going to war against Iraq does not qualify as just when explaining that this isn't something that requires consent of Catholics."

Comment: I am not really "equating" the two. But they have similarities, in that they are both examples of opinions, not doctrines/teachings to which we must assent, nor disciplines that we must obey. There is no moral principle in Catholicism that requires a nation to use the U.N. (or some other body of nations) to make decisions about its own self-defense. The pope can only recommend the U.S.'s use of the U.N., not require it.

----- (b) "On the surface, I certainly can't see how this is something binding, but the reason I stated some doubt is that I raised some question in the email forum started by Chris Butler, and he replied with a long response with several quotes from the popes of the past which seemed to make the case that this could be something binding."

Comment: I hesitate to say much about Chris B and what he believes, since he does not come here any more. However, I feel obliged to let you know about something. For a couple of years, I strongly opposed Chris B's evaluations of a variety of papal texts as "teachings/doctrines" to which we must give assent. Throughout 2001 and 2002, I had no doubt that he was frequently misjudging the character of papal texts, giving them more weight than the opinions/suggestions/recommendations that they were.

As Vatican II tells us, a pope has ways of signalling whether or not he is teaching, whether or not he is binding -- but Chris B does not recognize those "cues," and this leads him into error. I believe that Chris B, as a new Catholic who commendably loves the pope (and papacy) very much, has accidentally reached a point of "excess," wherein it is almost impossible for him to judge any papal statement to be something less than a teaching (requiring assent) or a discipline (requiring obedience). I was never able to convince him that popes do not communicate in this fashion.

I am sure that it pleases Chris B to be able, now, to express his beliefs about papal texts via e-mail, wherein he does not encounter my opposition. My statements of correction were a cause of great unhappiness to him for a very long time. Our conflicts on this topic were a source of deep pain for me too. It is even very unpleasant for me just to have to explain this to you. Of particular sadness to me is when I notice that someone (e.g., another contributor to this thread) has adopted Chris's mistakes in this area.

It's up to you, Hollis, but I'd recommend that you not bother to mention these comments of mine to Chris B via e-mail, unless you want him to suffer too! (My comments would also be a waste of his time, since he already knows my thinking about these matters.)

I am not at all surprised to see you mention Chris B's opinion of the pope's statements about Iraq. He says "binding," and I say "no."

(3) I need to express how very sad I feel for the person who suffered from such a hatred, and such an incomparable obsession, that he felt it necessary to post between ten and twenty separate attacks of me (above) during the week that I have been away. His is really a mind in need of enlightenment and a soul in need of healing and forgiveness. He seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Needless to say, I utterly reject every single negative word that he spoke about me and my beliefs. His opposition of holds no water at all. I don't have a spare twelve hours to refute him, point by point.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

John,

Good move not wasting time on refuting the cat. I'm glad someone else had the courage to see this guy is obsessed with the war.

He will say he is to busy to post, and than BAM! He will post fifteen in a very short period.. If you think America and its allies have a right to fight this just war, you are the worse guy in the world to him.(besides me.)

I respect any Catholics opinion that is against this war. That is there right. Atila did say a few months back that he looks at Chris Butler posts as infalliable (or something very close to this).

He has said that the Vice President prayed to God and thanked him for Sept 11 2001.

This guy doesn't understand know Catholicism. The Church doesn't operate like that.

-- David (Dvid@excite.com), March 22, 2003.

Hi John

The man has apologised to you, an apology you accepeted. Your continued uncharitable behaviour brings you no credit and will only confirm what many suspect about you. It would have been nice to see you offer an apology to Atila in return to his gracious and humble apology, instead what do you offer? Shame on you.

>"[Clarification: I just got through stating that I wasn't sure if OMO could be Kiwi or Emerald. As I was writing that long post, "Emerald" (ironically) posted his message. I did not see it until after I had submitted my own. I should have known that OMO could not be Emerald. I should have realized that Emerald would not have defended the pope as OMO has done.]"

"Clarification" It wasnt me John.

Hollis all your questions on the UN are answered here by our Pope...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/document s/hf_jp-ii_mes_20021217_xxxvi-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Sorry for the link Blessings!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

Jmj

So, Kiwi, you believe that I should apologize?
OK. I'm sorry ... to see that you could be so wrong as to think that I should apologize.

You wrote: "The man has apologised to you, an apology you accepeted."
I don't recall reading an "apology," and I know that I didn't accept one. I referred to the man's statement (on another thread) as an "olive branch" that I would accept.
But you should have realized that his offer and my acceptance took place before I came to this thread (for the first time in a week) and saw how my person and my comments (despite being valid) had been trashed. It was when I saw the above that I realized why he had backed off on the other thread. He remembered losing control and trying to destroy me on this thread (and probably on others that I haven't even read yet), and shame and fear set it.

Now ask yourself: What did I do in response yesterday? I kept my temper in check, left a brief paragraph of complaint, and did not mention the culprit's name (just as I had promised him).
Your ridiculous response to my mild complaint was to call it "uncharitable behaviour" for which I ought to apologize -- while you simultaneously remained silent about the incredibly foul behavior of the other guy.
Oh, how blinding is anti-Americanism! How sick with envy you and your partner-in-crime are!

Have another Robson, brew-boy!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.

Dear John it is with much sadness that I must say these words but I have to be true to myself. If there is one thing I believe I have been on this forum it is honest. I have said dozens of times your knowledge of church doctrine is impressive but to me book knowledge is only a very small part in what it means to be a good Catholic man.

Your pride and arrogance have always been a concern to me although I was rather indifferent as to your overall character. I always try and look at the good side of people, however on reflection and balance I believe you do far more harm than good, in short I think you are a very nasty and frankly unwell man- as well as a painful and annoying bore.

I know I recently said you were orthodox etc and that I admired you as I hoping not to have to lose your friendship and that you could change your evil ways. Unfortunately I cannot live with this, something I admit I should have been more upfront with. Reflection and hindsight are wonderful things. I will not counter any of your pathetic and infantile accusations above. It will only spur you on to further denials and lies.

Your twisted and evil sense of logic is apparent to all who have had the misfortune to find themselves in disagreement with you. I wish I had supported Chris Butler more and Chris I am truly sorry for falling for Johns lies, especially long winded private emails outlining why you were so evil . Chris I cannot express my shame in “siding” with someone as reprehensible as this man.

John I believe you to be a manipulative, dishonest and very dangerous man. I feel embarrassed and sorry for you and simply request that you never answer any of my questions on this forum, or correspond with me directly again please. The only exception to this would obviously be if I were leading people away from the Catholic faith.

Goodbye John and may you find the true meaning of Christ.

Stephens mind was racing as Berards voice went on and on. There was something magnificent about the way Madame Azaire turned this absurd man aside. He was only a small town bully, it was true, but he was clearly used to getting his own way”

Sebastian Faulks- Birdsong

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Atila,

Back to the Iraqis - here's a great article quoting a recent UPI release about human shields who have been "shocked back into reality" by having to see Iraqis face-to-face who state they would commit suicide if the Americans didn't come to liberate them - bombing and all. So I believe the facts (not just this but from many other sources) do show that the Iraqis are very much in favor of this act of liberation - even with the use of force. That's how bad it has been under SH.

On the Russians and others opposing this war - I had earlier stated that there is already evidence showing the link between France and Germany providing illegal weapons and supplies to SH to build the banned weapons he has (those weapons the UN was pretending to want to find). I also said I'd be willing to bet that Russia is also on the take in this same manner. Well, too bad I'm not a betting man who could have found someone dumb enough to take that bet. Low and behold, we are finding the Iraqis loaded up with banned weapons and supplies from Russia. What a SHOCK! (not!)

Once again, I really have a hard time placing any confidence in the UN and there is no moral necessity to go through these bunch of thugs with their own concerns (often detestible) at heart - not the good of others.

But I will also agree with your statement in another post talking about "idealism" and the wisdom of the Church on matters such as artificial birth control and other things. Wisdom is the ability to see the longer-term, more profound relationships of cause and effect. In the long-run, the Holy Father's stance to go through the UN may make sense, but it certainly does not in the short-run from the limited facts I have at my disposal.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

Kiwi,

I'll read the document when I can find some time. Thanks!

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

John,

Although I don't find it virtuous always to be in the middle between opposing views, but I would guess that I'm somewhere between you and Chris on this matter. I always give the benefit of the doubt to any teaching and even opinion of the current Holy Father. I'm also not going to loose my faith if there are direct contradictions (either later facts or teachings of popes) with some of these statements of the current pope, because I certainly don't see them as infallible, and as currently stated, binding to the faithful. But I have been sickened to the point of nauseating of the many "modern theologians" who can twist any Scripture passage or papal teaching and demonstrate that a faithful Catholic can disagree with the teaching (artificial contraception and ordination of males only to the priesthood come to mind), so I tend to take the safe bet of agreeing and following the Holy Father even if it may not be binding. That's why I started this and the Just War - or Not? thread. My final opinion is that I'm certainly not going to go against the wisdom and insights of the Holy Father on this matter, but I also believe others should not force those who do disagree to submit to these recommendations of the Vatican since I can not see these as anything binding as presented to this point.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 24, 2003.

Thanks, Hollis. Your decision and position seems very reasonable to me.

Goodbye, Mr. Isherwood -- or, rather, "au revoir," because you always get over these boyish fits eventually.
[Oh. Just one major correction ... Don't post things about people, if you have such a bad memory. You wrote: "Chris, I am truly sorry for falling for John's lies, especially long winded private emails outlining why you were so evil". FACTS: I did not tell any "lies," and I did not call anyone "evil." (How ironic, since there is a forum thread wherein Chris B insisted that we have the right to call people we know "evil," while I insisted that we can only refer to their sinful acts as "evil." Now you falsely accuse me of calling Chris B evil.)]

God bless you both.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.

Our wonderful moral compass, the UN, is at it again.

United Nations Proposes Coercive Population Control In Ethiopia

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), March 28, 2003.