My idea is to concentrate here excerpts and links to declarations by Church Officials (The Pope, Vatican officials, Episcopal Conferences and other Cardinals, archbishops and bishops).

I think of it as a “database” where we can come to read this kind of texts, so please avoid posting:

(1) comments about the posts: we can do that on the other posts already active;

(2) posts by priests and laypeople; they lack the Episcopal munus and the full teaching authority given only to the successors of the apostles (we have seen enough quoting of priests “more orthodox than the pope” in this forum already, who seem to lack an accurate view of their position in Church hierarchy); those quotes are best suited for the other threads where we put our own laypeople opinions.

My opposition to this war, following the pope, is well known to all, but I am waiting to see bishops supporting this war. Those catholics who support this war have here a specific place to post any such comment, should they find one.

Here’s the first.

“Il Vaticano molto preoccupato per quanto sta accadendo in Iraq dopo l'attacco angloamericano. Il card.Laghi parla di ''fatto tragico e disastroso''. Il cardinale Etchegaray vive con ''preoccupazione'' le ore immediatamente successive al primo attacco. Per il cardinale Roberto Tucci ''quando si conoscera' tutto, si vedra' che questa guerra era stata gia' decisa molto tempo prima che si conoscesse il risultato del lavoro degli ispettori. E questo e' un fatto grave'' ha detto.”

http://www.ansa.it/rubriche/mondo/2003-03-20_1816281.html

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

Answers

This is a statement from 3/19/2003 from Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, the President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Here are a variety of statements on the war from Bishops.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 20, 2003.

Wow!

Straight from the oven!

It will save much searching!

Thanks, Mateo.

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

Here's a new one:

HOLY SEE STATEMENT ON HOSTILITIES IN IRAQ

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=34657

and another:

POPE, AT AUDIENCE, MAKES FINAL PLEA FOR PEACE

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=34652

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

This is a February 3 statement by Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien.

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

Here is the page on Iraq from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops:

http://www.cccb.ca/Backgrounders.htm?CD=368

Of particular interest will be the Statement on Iraq dated January 20, 2003.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Here is a statement by the Australian Bishops Conference:

http://www.catholic.org.au/media/2003/mar05.htm

-- Ed (Catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Here is a united statement by the Anglican and Catholic Bishops of New Zealand on the war in Iraq:

http://www.catholic.org.nz/bishopsF.htm

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Here are the Archbishops of England and Wales commenting on the morality of the war in Iraq:

http://217.19.224.165/frameset.htm

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Just realised that you can get the entire opinion on the war with Iraq, of all conferences of Bishops in the United Kingdom here:

http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/News/news-february-2003.html

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Here is the opinion of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India on the war with Iraq:

http://www.cbcisite.com/pressstatements.html

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Here is a letter from Cardinal Kim at the the Catholic Conference of Bishops site for Korea expressing his views on the war with Iraq:

http://www.cbck.or.kr/english/news/index.htm

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

the Republic of Ireland statement on Iraq can be found here:

http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/Pressrel/14-march-2003.html

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 21, 2003.

Thanks, Ed L.

The last paragraph in the final statement you mentioned (from Ireland) states:

"In reaffirming our support for all persons and groups who are engaged in the building of peace and the promoting of justice, we encourage the Irish people to continue to pray fervently that a peaceful solution may yet be found and that the many years of human suffering in Iraq can be brought to a just and peaceful end."

Through the prayers of the people of Ireland (and many others), "the many years of human suffering in Iraq [are] be[ing] brought to a just and peaceful end." Honest people everywhere are acknowledging that, if not for the remarkable and praiseworthy actions taken by the Coalition for Civilization, the incredible "human suffering in Iraq" [torture, murder, kids in prison, confiscation of public funds, corruption of all kinds, etc.] would have been prolonged for many decades more. Many people are realizing that they were terribly wrong to have spoken out against the then-impending military action.

God bless you.
John

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

Here's what the Bishops Conference of Japan has to say about war in Iraq:

http://www.cbcj.catholic.jp/eng/edoc/e03iraq.htm

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2003.

Here is a page of other conferences in foreign languages. Perhaps those who are familiar with these languages can search the respective sites and report back what each specific conferences stand is on the war in Iraq. This would help this thread immensely.

http://www02.so-net.ne.jp/~catholic/wlink/bishops.html

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2003.

Here is another site listing more international conferences mostly in foreign languages that may give more information about each conferences respective stand on the war in Iraq.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2003.

Oh no the perevrt at itr again , pervertiung the truth in his inimiatble fashion. Someone lock him up for crying out loud. Goofball that he is.

Just so people are clear Johns rather confused second paragraph is not from the Irish Bishops but his own warped morality with a few words taken from the Irsish Bishops as some sort of "clever" twist. How sad, how prideful , how arrogant and how wrong he is.

"Through the prayers of the people of Ireland (and many others), "the many years of human suffering in Iraq [are] be[ing] brought to a just and peaceful end." Honest people everywhere are acknowledging that, if not for the remarkable and praiseworthy actions taken by the Coalition for Civilization, the incredible "human suffering in Iraq" [torture, murder, kids in prison, confiscation of public funds, corruption of all kinds, etc.] would have been prolonged for many decades more. Many people are realizing that they were terribly wrong to have spoken out against the then-impending military action."

Wrong John as usual.No one is "realsing they were terribly wrong", least of all the Catholic Church. Not one of Bishops have changed their view and neither has the Vatican or the Pope. Your nonsense is nothing but republican utilitarianism at its worst.

Lets here what the Bishops of Irleand really said so we can be left in no doubt of the Churchs position both in Ireland and throughout the world. Rest assured their position has not chaged one iota becuase the war was brief and Saddam was removed from power as good as that was.

AMongst other things they said

"Earlier this year Pope John Paul II emphatically said: “No to war… War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity”. The Irish Bishops’ Conference wishes to add its voice of that of the Holy Father, and to the Bishops’ Conferences of the United States, England & Wales, France and many other countries on this issue. The resort to war on Iraq would indeed be a defeat for humanity and we would all be greatly diminished by it. Furthermore we must consider the consequences of any war on the people of Iraq.

We are heartened by the position taken recently by the Irish Government on the UN Security Council in upholding the role of the United Nations and the primacy of International Law. The United Nations Charter requires all states to refrain from the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political integrity of any state”. There is a danger now that this key requirement of international peace and security will be put aside as the option of a pre-emptive war is being actively considered. We urge the Irish Government to reject such a course of action and to continue to work diplomatically for a just solution based on law and on humanitarian principles. In the words of Pope John Paul II, “War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option”. In our view, the case has not been made that such a war is the very last option.

Many thanks Ed for your good work here.

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

cuse the spelling !

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

Here is another site listing many international conferences of Catholic Bishops. Again, anyone who could ascertain their positions on the War in Iraq and post it here would be greatly assisting this thread.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/religious4.shtml

-- Ed (catholic444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2003.

John's comment has raised another question in my mind that should be addressed in this thread and that is:

Does anyone know of a single Catholic Bishops Conference, or a single Bishop for that matter, anywhere in the world who is/was in support of the action the coalition took in attacking Iraq when it did and who is in opposition to the Pope's feelings/concerns on this subject?

If anyone has such information could they please make it available here at this site for examination?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2003.

Jmj
Ed L, although there may be one or more such bishops, it would not matter to me if there were not a single one. All the bishops and the pope had every right to express their opinions and to offer suggestions on this matter. In the end, though, the decision (as the CCC teaches) was in the hands of the Coalition nations' governmental leaders.

Joe Stong has wonderfully well explained the facts about the conflict in every way -- up, down, left, right -- on many, many threads -- over the past month. It is really not helpful to anyone to keep hashing and rehashing this matter at this point, because the hostilities are almost 100% over, and nothing anyone says here is going to change anything.

The only effect this kind of continued conversation has is a negative effect -- namely, that it gives a platform for discredited tyros like Kiwi to make further silly statements and (unjustly) to criticize people who were right all along.

God bless you.
John

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

John, you said, “In the end, though, the decision (as the CCC teaches) was in the hands of the Coalition nations' governmental leaders.” Therein lies the rub John. The Catechism definitely does not teach this and never has. Only misguided individuals through ignorance, patriotism, gullibility, blindness and/or pride could come up with this sort of spin on what the Catechism actually says. When applied to the situation in Iraq the Pope, in union with his bishops, has said as much when he has declared this war to be immoral. Two camps have formed in the forum: patriotic conservative pro-Americans proclaiming themselves as world “peace keepers” and their groupies on one hand; and the rest of the world on the other.

John, you wrote: “Joe Stong has wonderfully well explained the facts about the conflict in every way”. Are you serious? Just to give you an example, on one thread Joe wrote: “There is also a big difference in the culture of complete and instant information here in the US and how most prelates get their news. This is just the way things are. It's not evil or malicious on the side of the Vatican. Most of the people who work there are not IT conscious. … I don't fault the Vatican for being purposely blind or slow. I'm just pointing out that we can't expect them to be omniscient and possess capabilities beyond their means (both in manpower resources and financially)!” Do you actually believe what was written here is “fact” and a “wonderful explanation” of why the Pope and the bishops feel the way they do about this immoral war? John, surely you can see the absurdity in this? In ridiculing the Ordinary Magisterium, Joe has used a tactic that would make Jack Chick proud.

John, one of your recent remarks triggered a question in me that prompted me to write what I have. If the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, if all or most of the bishops of the world are in unison with the Pope in condemning this war as “immoral”; and, if assent is required when the Ordinary Magisterium infallibly promulgates on matters of faith and “morals”, then, is it not incumbent on every Catholic to condemn the war on Catholic principle alone, as “immoral”? This question then leads to yet another, which also seems to go to the heart of the issue. Are we, as inhabitants of this earth, Catholics first or patriots first? When faced with the Truth and forced to make a decision that goes against our nationalistic patriotic beliefs; then, in order to fulfil our destiny as Catholics, what is our religious obligation under the circumstances?

The Pope and virtually every bishop in the world have plainly and unequivocally stated the war in Iraq is immoral. It behoves me to explain how good Catholics who have defended the Faith here at this forum over and over again can ignore this. While chastising others relentlessly for not following what the Catholic Faith teaches in other threads, in this instance they say: “oh that’s only the opinion of the Pope and the Bishops and I am not obliged to give assent to what the bishops in union with the Holy Father say about the war in Iraq. They are grossly misinformed and really don’t know what’s going on in the world”. John, do you really buy this yourself personally based on what Joe and others have said? When does the pride and misguided patriotism in you finally give way to humility? When does your Faith kick in and when do you finally begin to listen to your Catholic leaders and follow your Catholic Faith?

John, on reflection, don’t you find your actions strange at all? Have you not asked yourself how you and many of these over-zealous Catholics can say: “the Pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and then, in the next breath on the very same day in another thread say: “you must listen to the Holy Father and believe in what he teaches because he was put there by Christ, Himself”? Don’t you see the inconsistency and hypocrisy here? Are we Catholics or not? Are we to listen to the Ordinary Magisterium or not?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 24, 2003.

Look, CCC 2309-2310 are VERY clear that prelates and clergymen are NOT directly responsible for the "common good" - ergo, they are not the ones who make the prudential decisions involved in the Just War theory. This DOESN'T MEAN that clergy men have NO SAY AT ALL.

The fact that you people are incapable of living in a world where the Church has one role and the State has another and while there is some overlap one doesn't rule the other, is amazing to me.

I'm stunned that you can read CCC 2309 and not see that nowhere does it say that Archbishops or Cardinals have the final say in matters of national security and the determination as to whether or not conditions for a just war have been met. Instead, it talks about "those responsible for the common good" DUH, GEE I WONDER WHO THAT COULD BE???? Since CCC 2310 goes on to say that these same authorities are the ones who actually wage the war, and we know that prelates never fight, it seems obvious to deduce that prelates are not the ones who are responsible for making the decision!

No one denies that the Pope and Bishops thought the war was unjustified given the evidence which they had. GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THEY WERE PRIVY TO. That's my point.

The Vatican is NOT OMNISCENT. Show me the Catholic magisterial teaching wherein the Holy See claims to be omniscent please.

Show me the Catholic magisterial document that teaches that the Pope and Bishops can make Moral prudential decisions independent of questions of fact and details about a specific situation.

Show me the Catholic teaching that says that principles are not to be applied differently according to circumstances of time and place!

Show me historical precedent in the last 20 years when the Vatican or national churches have proven themselves to be competent authorities on matters of economics, politics and military intelligence. They are the first ones who will admit that they "don't offer concrete suggestions only principles upon which people should make the proper conclusions..."

In other words - I'm right and you are woefully mistaken about all things Catholic. You just haven't done your homework and you simply haven't thought it all through. Try applying your theory of how the world works to KOSOVO OR RUWANDA - in neither case did the UN SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE, YET THE VATICAN HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF FORCE.... why not?

yOU HAVE NO ANSWER BECAUSE YOU'VE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A CORNER. In your world view authority is arbitrary, things are right or wrong merely "because the Pope says so" and not because what he says is actually right or wrong!

Yet we see in countless ways how churchmen depend on lay people for advice and information. They can't be expected to simply know everything independently of human limitations and access to information!

According to your reasoning, if the Vatican doesn't sack the local radical priest it's because "while they must know 100% of the situation, there must be a good mysterious reason for them to do nothing..."

No! Idiots! Most of the time the Vatican DOES NOT KNOW 100% of the local situation because no one has told them, or no one whom they trust. By the time the word trickles through the bureaucracy, the situations tend to have worked themselves out....

I defy any of you to prove to me or yourselves that the Holy See could POSSIBLY have as much access to the pertinent information regarding Iraqi WMD programs and threats to world peace than the US GOVERNMENT.

I defy any of you brilliant bulbs to prove to me or yourselves that a staff of 100 in the Secretariat of State in the Vatican, responsible for all the affairs of the Church could also amass more quality information than the entire intelligence gathering arms of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DSA, AND DOD.

Your position is more akin to Jack Chick and Fideist Protestants than anything I've written! You seem to think that if the Pope says 2+2=5 then we've all got to accept it. I say, "If the Pope claims that 2+2=5, that while the Pontif is a holy and good man, excellent theologian and philosopher, still it seems that his information and sources regarding mathematics failed him..."

IN other words, I don't blame him, I blame the lack of information he has to go on.

We do know - from reading past statements from the Pope and cardinals that they all accepted as a GIVEN that the US campaign would lead to immediate and widespread Muslim terrorism and widespread civilian death. Neither of these things came to pass.

We also know - from reading past statements from European prelates, that their understanding of American military strategy and policy left much to be desired: confusing psych-ops mention of the MOAB for actual policy which scrupulously avoided both civilian death and destruction!

We also know that they accepted as a given that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that there was no danger of Iraq fooling the world....

YET we have found an illegal pipeline feeding oil to Syria - and we found all those military hardware parts and weapons from France, Russia and elsewhere that somehow found their way past "the box" the UN had set around Saddam!

In short, they were against the war because they felt on the one hand that it would lead immediately to widespread humanitarian disaster - which it did NOT, and because in their opinion - based on what little they knew, the threat to the US was not "severe enough".

But that position begs the question of who has the final say in making those determinations. You can't change the rules as you go. You can't re-define words and re-define doctrine as you go because you are afraid of the Muslim extremists. Pastoral solutions can not do away with doctrine.

Where in the Catechism or in past Catholic documents does it say that 3rd parties who are uninformed in the specifics of a threat have veto power over those directly responsible - and in the know - for the common good?

Why does the Pope or Bishops think the American led campaign wasn't Just? And there in lies my point - not misinformation a la Jack Chick, but information. READ THEIR TEXTS. Otherwise you're trying to argue that a) Clergy are directly responsible for the common good and therefore rule nations, and b) these clergy men can make moral teachings not based on information at all but solely on their "authority".

Neither of these propositions are Catholic by the way. Like so many other moral arguments - you are SO eager to have it one way that questions of fact, historical precedent and past Catholic doctrine are thrown out, and you attach more meaning to Papal pronouncements than is warranted.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

The Pope and Bishops - based on the information and suppositions available to them - declare X to be immoral. Subsequent history proves that X was not only good, but really good. Oops.

This only proves that sometimes people can make the wrong prudent decision, not that their authority is suspect or that they are wrong in other questions. Sometimes a "pastoral solution" can be the wrong move out of a dozen other possibilities. Those in authority have to go with what they know and sometimes based on their best guess.

For example, the Pope and all the world's bishops deplored the loss of the Papal States to the state of Italy.

Now however they're happy that the Church no longer has to worry about governing a swath of middle Italy. It leaves the Church free to concentrate on other-worldly values. (Besides the fact they no longer have to pay for a navy and army.)

At the time (1870), it looked like a "disaster for humanity" but after they had a chance to see all the ramifications and get a better handle on the full situation, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Ed L, if time permits me to do so, I will reply to your comments.
(Joe has covered much ground already [and better than I could have done], but I think that there are at least a couple of things I could talk about.)
JFG

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

I apologise for the length of this reply, however I thought it best that I reply to each comment Joe made since he seemed to be referring to my most recent post in this thread. I thought it was about time his misguided, slanted, illogical argument/rationalisation for pre- emptive action against Iraq be exposed for the sham that it really is. For those of you who don’t like to read long-winded replies I suggest you skip down to the bottom of the post and begin reading at “In summary…” I won’t get into what I believe the United States reasons are for pre-emptive action against Iraq (and there are many) here as that really isn’t the subject of this thread.

Joe you said:

“Look, CCC 2309-2310 are VERY clear that prelates and clergymen are NOT directly responsible for the "common good" - ergo, they are not the ones who make the prudential decisions involved in the Just War theory. This DOESN'T MEAN that clergy men have NO SAY AT ALL.”

I hope you aren’t hanging your entire argument of a “just war” on these two clauses in the catechism for if you are it is clear the United States hasn’t measured up in the slightest. You have no argument from me about clergymen having a say in such matters. In fact, not only every clergyman but rather, every Christian has the responsibility to speak out when immoral acts take place. “All Christians are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.” (LG 40)

"It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity 'to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.” (CCC 2442)

But it is more than just having every Christian speak out when immoral acts are discovered. Additionally, “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.” (CCC 1930) Did you read this Joe? The United Sates have deprived themselves of moral legitimacy in that the “rigorous conditions of moral consistency” (CCC 2309) have not been met. Not just any conditions Joe, but “rigorous” conditions. The issue is not that the U.S. declared war on Iraq. The issue is that the U.S. did not exhaust all avenues of peaceful means for a solution before declaring war on Iraq.

While using “evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (CCC 2309) you have conveniently failed to read and/or comprehend this clause in its entirety. The clause also stipulates that one of the conditions for a just and moral war was that, “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;” (CCC 2309) Joe, the entire world save for 2 countries (United Kingdom and Australia – the only nations to commit their troops to harm’s way) agreed that Mr. Bush had not exhausted all avenues to a peaceful solution. (Please don’t quote me all the other countries involved in the coalition who owe their existence to the United Sates. In fact, the United States doesn’t even recognise Taiwan as a sovereign nation and yet, when they were scrounging the neighbourhood to find anyone who would lend support to their war plan, listed Taiwan as one of the countries identified in the coalition.)

The entire world asked to see the evidence bearing out U.S. claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but were told it was too risky, that “intelligence sources would be compromised”. That doesn’t hold water any longer. Now that the war is over, now that Saddam is history, why isn’t the U.S. sharing this intelligence with the rest of the world? I sincerely hope the U.S. finds WPMs soon for their credibility is waning on the world stage.

Joe, you said:

“The fact that you people are incapable of living in a world where the Church has one role and the State has another and while there is some overlap one doesn't rule the other, is amazing to me.”

Where did you ever get this notion? Certainly you didn’t get it from the catechism. The catechism clearly states the Church’s role is to speak out whenever immoral acts occur. (CCC 1930)

Joe you said:

“I'm stunned that you can read CCC 2309 and not see that nowhere does it say that Archbishops or Cardinals have the final say in matters of national security and the determination as to whether or not conditions for a just war have been met. Instead, it talks about "those responsible for the common good" DUH, GEE I WONDER WHO THAT COULD BE????

I never said the Church had the final say in such matters. I only said She has the duty to point out immoral acts. You’re the one who said, “The fact that you people are incapable of living in a world where the Church has one role and the State has another and while there is some overlap one doesn't rule the other, is amazing to me.”

Joe you said:

“Since CCC 2310 goes on to say that these same authorities are the ones who actually wage the war, and we know that prelates never fight, it seems obvious to deduce that prelates are not the ones who are responsible for making the decision!”

Sure the authorities are responsible for making the decision, but have you any idea what the world “responsible” means Joe? And when the authorities make an “irresponsible” decision and thus an immoral one, it is the Church’s duty to take them to task for it.

Joe you said:

“No one denies that the Pope and Bishops thought the war was unjustified given the evidence which they had. GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THEY WERE PRIVY TO. That's my point.”

What an ignorant thing to say. Not that this comment even deserves debate, but, do you have first hand knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, that the Church made in uninformed decision based on limited knowledge of the situation. Your attempt to minimalise the role of the Church and cavalierly dismiss Her out of hand as being irresponsible in this instance; and indeed in our lives, is both childish and offensive and shows you have no real basis for argument. What evidence does one need when the majority of the world is crying for 90 days more in the pursuit of a peaceful solution? What was the rush? Joe you said:

“The Vatican is NOT OMNISCENT. Show me the Catholic magisterial teaching wherein the Holy See claims to be omniscient please.”

Who said it did? I never said the Vatican was omniscient. I said the Pope and the bishops – the Ordinary Magisterium, declared the war in Iraq to be immoral. You don’t need to know everything in the world to do that Joe. Shoot, I don’t know very much, but even I can see that all avenues weren’t exhausted before the United States went to war on March 20.

Joe you said:

“Show me the Catholic magisterial document that teaches that the Pope and Bishops can make Moral prudential decisions independent of questions of fact and details about a specific situation.”

There you go again, mixing fact with fiction. I’ve shown you where it is the Church’s role to keep us on a moral course in life and to point out immoral acts committed by those who espouse the pursuit of justice, then you go muddy the waters with unsubstantiated allegations the Church acted on misinformation or incomplete information. How do you know this Joe? You’ve been spouting this sort of empty hollow rhetoric for over a month now with no proof. Have you come to this notion simply because you lived in Rome for a while? You’re not giving the Holy See much credit when you begin saying they are making outlandish statements without an adequate amount of knowledge to make an informed decision. How much information does one need to suggest that all avenues for a peaceful end to the question were not explored when the United States refused to provide an additional 90-day period to seek a solution before the “smart bombs” started to fall?

Joe you said:

“Show me the Catholic teaching that says that principles are not to be applied differently according to circumstances of time and place!”

Where have I said this? I must have missed something here. I agree you that Catholic teaching should take individual circumstances into account each time before declaring immoral acts have taken place. In this instance the Church condemned the United States for not exhausting all avenues before declaring war on Iraq. She studied the situation, She heard outcries from every corner of the world demanding that more time be given, but, in the end, it was Bush who deemed that Iraq was an imminent threat to the homeland security of the United Sates of America and so, war was “declared”. What a joke – was Saddam Hussein was such an imminent threat to the U.S. that Bush couldn’t wait 90 days? When recognising the failure of the United States to explore all peaceful means to a solution, the Church did the right and just thing in declaring the United States to have conducted an immoral act. It didn’t need all the intelligence from around the world to figure that one out! Surely Joe, you can come out from behind this lamed-brain excuse and come up with something better than that.

Joe you said:

“Show me historical precedent in the last 20 years when the Vatican or national churches have proven themselves to be competent authorities on matters of economics, politics and military intelligence. They are the first ones who will admit that they "don't offer concrete suggestions only principles upon which people should make the proper conclusions..."

I never said it is the job of the Church to be competent authorities in economics, politics or military intelligence. I said it is Her job to declare immoral acts when She sees them. You keep printing words in my mouth! Quit twisting words around to mask the weak premise of your argument! In this case the Holy Father in union with his bishops has clearly stated that the United States and its coalition partners acted immorally. When such a strong condemnation by the Ordinary Magisterium is issued, every Catholic should take notice. And no Joe, there should be no separation of Church and state! The Church is Jesus Christ and all his followers. It is not, as you would have us all believe, the Roman Curia, working away in the recessed cellars of the Vatican planning some sinister act to undermine legitimate governments with little or no “military intelligence”.

Joe you said:

“In other words - I'm right and you are woefully mistaken about all things Catholic.”

Excuse me? You lost me here. Your attempt at logic is astounding. I can’t even begin to debate this point with you as you’ve gone off on another temper tantrum and I shall have to wait till you return in order to resume this debate. Once again, you’ve twisted something I’ve said (I really can’t tell what by your comments) and made it to look like I’ve condemned the entire universe for not being Catholic. Joe you really need to read these posts more carefully.

Joe you said:

“ You just haven't done your homework and you simply haven't thought it all through. Try applying your theory of how the world works to KOSOVO OR RUWANDA - in neither case did the UN SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE, YET THE VATICAN HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF FORCE.... why not?

Haven’t done my homework? I’ve shown you where you’ve misunderstood the entire argument of immorality. I’ve explained the Ordinary Magisterium to you. I’ve shown you where you have misread or not completely read the catechism clauses you use in your argument. Joe, let me say this again for your benefit: It’s not that the United States declared war on Iraq that is the problem here, it’s that they didn’t exhaust all avenues of peaceful means before doing so – more particularly in granting an additional 90-day period for the weapons inspectors to go about finishing their work. I am convinced they would have found nothing in doing so anyway, however, the rest of the world would have been appeased and Mr. Bush could have then begun his war had he given them an additional length of time. In this instance it would have been the moral thing to do.

Joe you said:

“yOU HAVE NO ANSWER BECAUSE YOU'VE PAINTED YOURSELF INTO A CORNER. In your world view authority is arbitrary, things are right or wrong merely "because the Pope says so" and not because what he says is actually right or wrong!

Yes Joe, being Catholic is a bitch! Freedom is a bitch! Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want to do. Freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do in the moral order of things. Joe, as Catholic Christians we are not free to do whatever we want to do. As Catholic Christians we must obey the Church, the Vicar of Christ and His apostles when the rubber meets the road. When the Ordinary Magisterium goes to great lengths to condemn an act by a country it is our duty, our obligation, our responsibility as Catholics to listen.

You say I have no answer? You say I’ve painted myself into a corner? I think I’ve addressed all your comments to this point and have given more than enough adequate answers to them, but in the interest of having you truly be subservient to the Church as any good Catholic should be, I will continue addressing your remarks here.

Joe you said:

“Yet we see in countless ways how churchmen depend on lay people for advice and information. They can't be expected to simply know everything independently of human limitations and access to information!

According to your reasoning, if the Vatican doesn't sack the local radical priest it's because "while they must know 100% of the situation, there must be a good mysterious reason for them to do nothing..."

Now you’re rambling on Joe. Don’t know what you’re saying here and further more it seems to having nothing to do with what we’re discussing – the immoral act of declaring war on Iraq by the United States, so I will ignore it pending further clarification from you if you think it’s a valid point.

Joe you said:

“No! Idiots!”

Joe, there really isn’t any call for name-calling. You remind me of a little boy who loses his temper when everyone doesn’t see things his way and takes his ball and goes home. You really need to work on your anger management Joe. Maybe your parish priest might have some suggestions for you in this regard.

Joe you said:

“Most of the time the Vatican DOES NOT KNOW 100% of the local situation because no one has told them, or no one whom they trust. By the time the word trickles through the bureaucracy, the situations tend to have worked themselves out....”

Joe, you’re getting paranoid now. Do you think the C.I.A. might be involved in a plot to taint the “military intelligence” that priests receive and forward on to the Vatican? This is your personal observation Joe, one with which I don’t personally agree. But in this particular case it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or military intelligence for that matter, to see that all avenues were not exhausted in this instance and that an additional 90 days would have satisfied 90 percent of the world in terms of justifying military action against Iraq.

Joe you said:

“I defy any of you to prove to me or yourselves that the Holy See could POSSIBLY have as much access to the pertinent information regarding Iraqi WMD programs and threats to world peace than the US GOVERNMENT.”

Joe please simmer down and drop this thing about the Church not having as much access to military intelligence as George Bush does. You know, it’s a pity the Church doesn’t have this access, for they could have exposed the Truth early on and saved the U.S. immorally declaring war on a sovereign nation.

Joe you said:

“I defy any of you brilliant bulbs to prove to me or yourselves that a staff of 100 in the Secretariat of State in the Vatican, responsible for all the affairs of the Church could also amass more quality information than the entire intelligence gathering arms of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DSA, AND DOD.”

Joe, relax! I don’t know of anyone who disagrees with you on this point. Here if it helps in our debate I will clearly state it for you here. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS MORE UP-TO-DATE, ACCURATE, COMPLETE MILITARY IMTELLIGENCE THAN THE VATICA DOES! There Joe, I’ve said it! The issue unfortunately is not one of military intelligence. The issue is the United States not having exhausted all avenues of peaceful solution sufficient enough to set the majority of nations on earth at ease with declaring war on Iraq. Sheeeeeesh, how many times do I have to say this? Is anyone out there listening to what I’m saying instead of going off and telling everyone what they think I’m saying?

Joe you said:

“Your position is more akin to Jack Chick and Fideist Protestants than anything I've written! You seem to think that if the Pope says 2+2=5 then we've all got to accept it. I say, "If the Pope claims that 2+2=5, that while the Pontif is a holy and good man, excellent theologian and philosopher, still it seems that his information and sources regarding mathematics failed him..."

Joe you’re talking gibberish now. Joe, you know you really haven’t said anything intelligent since beginning this thread but in the interest of informing all who may read it I will continue attempting to logically discuss the issue of the United States immorally declaring war on a nation when all other peaceful avenues had not been exhausted; and more importantly, as Catholics, listening to the Ordinary Magisterium when they advise us that an immoral act has taken place. Joe don’t you believe what Jesus said, that He would send the Holy Spirit to watch over His Church. Do you think the Holy Spirit only protects the Church from error in faith and morals when dealing with everyone but America?

Joe you said:

“IN other words, I don't blame him, I blame the lack of information he has to go on.”

That’s very big of you Joe. I’m sure the Pope (and all the Bishops) will sleep better tonight knowing you aren’t going to hold him accountable for his ill-informed and misguided declaration that the United States has conducted an immoral act. And what of the argument of the Holy Spirit Joe? Don’t you believe what Jesus told us, when He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to watch over His Church. Do you think the Holy Spirit only protects the Church from error in faith and morals when dealing with everyone but America?

Joe you said:

“We do know - from reading past statements from the Pope and cardinals that they all accepted as a GIVEN that the US campaign would lead to immediate and widespread Muslim terrorism and widespread civilian death. Neither of these things came to pass.

We also know - from reading past statements from European prelates, that their understanding of American military strategy and policy left much to be desired: confusing psych-ops mention of the MOAB for actual policy which scrupulously avoided both civilian death and destruction!

We also know that they accepted as a given that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that there was no danger of Iraq fooling the world....

YET we have found an illegal pipeline feeding oil to Syria - and we found all those military hardware parts and weapons from France, Russia and elsewhere that somehow found their way past "the box" the UN had set around Saddam!”

Enough already Joe with the argument that the Vatican has no military intelligence. This is a cheap ploy to deflect the debate away from your very weak position that all avenues were explored before Mr. Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave town! Just admit that morally, Bush should have got the majority of nations from around the world on his side through the auspices of the United Nations, since that was how he masked his charade (his true intent) in the first place, before declaring war on Iraq. In this way, he could have rightfully claimed a just and moral war with the support of 90 percent of the world backing him. In the beginning, he sought the approval of the United Nations in the hopes of parading his “just war” policies in public and when people started to ask a few questions or desired a few more steps before they give him blanket approval to bomb a nation, Mr. Bush, like you, took his ball and went home. Joe you said:

“In short, they were against the war because they felt on the one hand that it would lead immediately to widespread humanitarian disaster - which it did NOT, and because in their opinion - based on what little they knew, the threat to the US was not "severe enough".

Joe, if the threat was not severe enough what was the rush to bomb? Joe any war is a “humanitarian disaster”. It speaks to man’s inability to solve his problems in a fair, just and charitable way. War is always a last resort Joe, not a second last resort. War is only justified when all other means to a peaceful solution have proved fruitless.

Joe you said:

“But that position begs the question of who has the final say in making those determinations. You can't change the rules as you go. You can't re-define words and re-define doctrine as you go because you are afraid of the Muslim extremists. Pastoral solutions can not do away with doctrine.”

Who wants to change the rules Joe? Ultimately Mr. George Bush should make the final decision, but surely you’re not suggesting that decision shouldn’t be second-guessed when it is found to be immoral by the majority who inhabit the earth?

Joe you said:

“Where in the Catechism or in past Catholic documents does it say that 3rd parties who are uninformed in the specifics of a threat have veto power over those directly responsible - and in the know - for the common good?”

Joe, the Church doesn’t say that third parties have a right to veto and I never have said that, have I? What I said was the Church has declared the actions of the United States to be immoral. Big difference Joe! Quit twisting my words! What I’ve said was the Church has a right, in fact an obligation, to police morality and expose immorality whenever found. (LG 40, CCC 1930, CCC 2309).

Joe you said:

“Why does the Pope or Bishops think the American led campaign wasn't Just? And there in lies my point - not misinformation a la Jack Chick, but information. READ THEIR TEXTS. Otherwise you're trying to argue that a) Clergy are directly responsible for the common good and therefore rule nations, and b) these clergy men can make moral teachings not based on information at all but solely on their "authority".

Well, for what it’s worth, here goes again: the Untied States carried out an immoral act in Iraq when it declared war on Iraq without having exhausted all peaceful means to a solution. Had the U.S. exhausted all means to a peaceful solution, it could have favourably acquired the majority of world opinion to proceed with the war with Iraq.

Joe you said:

“Neither of these propositions are Catholic by the way. Like so many other moral arguments - you are SO eager to have it one way that questions of fact, historical precedent and past Catholic doctrine are thrown out, and you attach more meaning to Papal pronouncements than is warranted.”

Once again Joe, you’ve taken what I’ve said and put your own spin to it. I never claimed a.) or b.) and maybe some day you will come to see that.

Joe you said:

“The Pope and Bishops - based on the information and suppositions available to them - declare X to be immoral. Subsequent history proves that X was not only good, but really good. Oops.

This only proves that sometimes people can make the wrong prudent decision, not that their authority is suspect or that they are wrong in other questions. Sometimes a "pastoral solution" can be the wrong move out of a dozen other possibilities. Those in authority have to go with what they know and sometimes based on their best guess.”

Joe, when the Ordinary Magisterium tells me that something is immoral I believe it. I don’t ask what military intelligence they had before making the decision. I take God at His world that on matters of faith and morals, that the Holy Spirit will ensure that the Church will be given the sufficient tools to ensure moral righteousness is defended whenever challenged.

Joe you said:

“For example, the Pope and all the world's bishops deplored the loss of the Papal States to the state of Italy.

Now however they're happy that the Church no longer has to worry about governing a swath of middle Italy. It leaves the Church free to concentrate on other-worldly values. (Besides the fact they no longer have to pay for a navy and army.)

At the time (1870), it looked like a "disaster for humanity" but after they had a chance to see all the ramifications and get a better handle on the full situation, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise.”

I really don’t see what this has to do with faith and morals and with the war in Iraq. In matters of faith and morals the Church will be our moral compass and expose injustice where She finds it.

In summary, no one is defending Saddam’s regime. No one is condemning the United States for declaring war on Iraq. World opinion is condemning the United States for declaring war on Iraq without obtaining a world consensus to do so beforehand, through the United Nations who did not want to act in a premature or pre-emptive fashion. The Church rightfully condemned the actions of the United States: “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.” (CCC 1930).

The Church rightfully condemned as immoral the pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the United States, in that they did not follow the conditions laid out for a “just war”: "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:… all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;”

"The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church's teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.” (CCC 2421)

Regardless of whether anyone, including renegade Catholics feels the Church acted irresponsibly, She did so as directed by Jesus Christ, Himself through His mandate to His Vicar, His Holiness Pope John Paul II and all the temper tantrums, name-calling, and condescending, illogical word twisting can’t change that. It’s absolute Truth and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 25, 2003.

[topping] (Mamma mia, Ed L! You'd be a millionaire if you got paid by the word!)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Ed L.

On the 24th, you posted a reply to my words of the 23rd. Joe S then responded to you, and I associate myself with about 95% of the substance of his comments. I disagree with him on one matter of fact, as well as his use of the word, "idiots" (though I'm sure that he knows that you aren't an "idiot" and that the word was just an outburst of frustration over repeatedly having to defend a position that seems so obvious to us).

Ed, I have not yet read your huge message of the 25th. I have had too many other things to attend to, and I have the serious handicap of being a very slow reader. But now I'm going to look again at what you said to me now on the 24th -- to see if I want to add to Joe's message and/or to mention where I differ with him. ...

QUOTE: John, you said, “In the end, though, the decision (as the CCC teaches) was in the hands of the Coalition nations' governmental leaders.” Therein lies the rub John. The Catechism definitely does not teach this and never has. Only misguided individuals through ignorance, patriotism, gullibility, blindness and/or pride could come up with this sort of spin on what the Catechism actually says.

COMMENT: Whoa! Maybe I want to take back my criticism of Joe's use of the word, "Idiots"! I think that you just referred to me as something just as bad, if not worse. What is worse than the offense given to me by thesaurus-like litany of criticisms is the fact that you are factually wrong -- as Joe went on ably to explain.

QUOTE: When applied to the situation in Iraq the Pope, in union with his bishops, has said as much when he has declared this war to be immoral.

COMMENT: Well, this is a bit strange. You say here that the pope "has declared this war to be immoral," and Joe says, "No one denies that the Pope and Bishops thought the war was unjustified given the evidence which they had." I'm sorry, but I believe that both of you are wrong -- you, Ed, being more wrong than Joe. You used the word "immoral," while Joe used "unjustified." Actually -- unless I somehow missed a published statement from the pope -- he NEVER came right out and made a judgment on this subject. I tried to watch for this kind of thing with an eagle eye, but it was never forthcoming. That fact pleased me greatly, because it told me that he was scrupulously abiding by the principles laid out in CCC 2309-1210, leaving the decision up to the proper authorities.

The words the pope used were not of condemnation or negative judgment, but of exhortation, warning, encouragement, suggestion, reminding, and things of this nature. Had he wanted to declare the proposed action "immoral" (Ed) or "unjustified" (Joe), he would have used very explicit and clear language that would have left no doubt that Catholic members of Coalition forces would be required to "conscientiously object" to the orders they were given.

QUOTE: Two camps have formed in the forum: patriotic conservative pro-Americans proclaiming themselves as world “peace keepers” and their groupies on one hand; and the rest of the world on the other.

COMMENT: I have never "proclaimed [my nation] as world 'peace keepers,'" and I can't recall anyone else using that term here (nor in the U.S. administration). However, now that you mention it, it sounds like a pretty good role, in keeping with the gospel.
People who agree with others should not be referred to condescendingly as "groupies."
You are right, and it is much to be regretted, that you and "the rest of the world" oppose the side of courage and goodness, preferring to comprise the side that would have left the monsters "S. Hussein and sons" in power for another fifty years (torturing, murdering, thieving, raping imprisoning children, etc.). [By the way, since Chris Coose of Maine takes your side, I'm glad that you (not I) were the one who did not include him under the adjective "patriotic."]

QUOTE: [After quoting from Joe's comments, on another thread, about "info technology" at the Vatican.] Do you actually believe what was written here is “fact” and a “wonderful explanation” of why the Pope and the bishops feel the way they do about this immoral war? John, surely you can see the absurdity in this? In ridiculing the Ordinary Magisterium, Joe has used a tactic that would make Jack Chick proud.

ANSWER: Ed, you stated this because I had written: "Joe Stong has wonderfully well explained the facts about the conflict in every way -- up, down, left, right -- on many, many threads -- over the past month." It should have been obvious that I was speaking about many other posts that Joe has written -- not his brand-new one about "info tech" at the Vatican, which I had not even read yet when I wrote the just-quoted words. Now that I have read what Joe wrote on "I.T." -- including his defense of his comments, in response to criticism -- I find that I (like you) lack the knowledge to state that he is right or wrong (much less "absurd" or "ridiculing" [your words]). The fact is that Joe lived in Rome for several years (seminarian, I think) and spent time within the Vatican itself, so he far better able to judge the "I.T. consciousness" of the Vatican than you and I are. [By the way, Ed, I again reject the impropriety that you slipped into this latest "QUOTE" -- i.e., your reference to "this immoral war." It's not your place to judge the (im)morality.]

QUOTE: If the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, if all or most of the bishops of the world are in unison with the Pope in condemning this war as “immoral”; and, if assent is required when the Ordinary Magisterium infallibly promulgates on matters of faith and “morals”, then, is it not incumbent on every Catholic to condemn the war on Catholic principle alone, as “immoral”?

ANSWER: If you start with faulty premises, you end up with faulty conclusions [the G.I.G.O. principle].
The college of bishops, including the pope, is not synonymous with the term "Ordinary Magisterium" (or even just "Magisterium"). The word "magister" means teacher, and "magisterium" means "teaching authority. By extension, some people use the word Magisterium to mean "one or more men who are exercising their teaching authority." Finally, when a pope (or the body of bishops) teach in a "non-extraordinary" way (i.e., not "ex cathedra" and not in Council), they exercise their "Ordinary Magisterium."

With these facts in mind, we can see that you started with a faulty premise, Ed. It is not true that "all or most of the bishops of the world are in unison with the Pope in condemning this war as 'immoral.'" They applied the limited facts known to them to certain general moral principles and offered what amounts to tentative or conditional advice. They did not actually "teach" anything. They simply did not exercise their Magisterium! Therefore there was no "object" of doctrine to which Catholics needed to agree.

Ed, here is how you (and other supporters of the Axis of Weasels) arrived at a faulty conclusion:
Beginning months ago, though you lacked the authority to do so, you prejudged (as immoral) the anticipated action of the Coalition, and you longed for papal/episcopal confirmation of your private opinion. Then, because you wrongly thought that every word written/spoken by popes and bishops is an exercise of their Magisterium (teaching authority), you wrongly "read into" their words an agreement with your improper condemnation. As stated, though, they (especially the pope) were not teaching nor condemning.

QUOTE: Are we, as inhabitants of this earth, Catholics first or patriots first? When faced with the Truth and forced to make a decision that goes against our nationalistic patriotic beliefs; then, in order to fulfil our destiny as Catholics, what is our religious obligation under the circumstances?

ANSWER: It is obvious how you would answer these general questions, and I believe that I would agree with your answers. However, this fact is irrelevant to the case at hand, because -- contrary to what you have thought -- the Church is not here asking me to "make a decision that goes against" my patriotism.

QUOTE: The Pope and virtually every bishop in the world have plainly and unequivocally stated the war in Iraq is immoral.

COMMENT: Wow! It's deja vu, isn't it? This must be the third or fourth time that you have made this incorrect statement. At last I understand why your messages are sometimes too long, Ed. You repeat yourself, sometimes in triplicate or worse. Do you do this intentionally or by accident? Is it to convince the reader or yourself of what you are saying? Regardless of what is behind it, I recommend that you resist the temptation to do it (or remove repetitions while proof-reading).

QUOTE: It behoves me to explain how good Catholics who have defended the Faith here at this forum over and over again can ignore this.

COMMENT It "behoves" you? I don't know this word. If you intended to write "behooves," I suggest that you look up that word's meaning, because it does not fit this sentence. [I don't like correcting people for things like this, but if I keep silent, you may continue to misuse this word.]

QUOTE: John, do you really buy this yourself personally based on what Joe and others have said?

ANSWER: Oh, no, Ed. I believed what I have been saying -- based on the "just war" section of the CCC -- all the way back to last autumn, when UN resolution 1441 was passed. That was before Joe became a regular at the forum. He didn't convince me of anything! I was just happy to have such an articulate spokesman as Joe joining me here as an ally.

QUOTE: When does the pride and misguided patriotism in you finally give way to humility? When does your Faith kick in and when do you finally begin to listen to your Catholic leaders and follow your Catholic Faith?

ANSWER: I am not action on "pride and misguided patriotism." My faith never has to "kick in," because it is always functioning. Except when I sin (which has not happened in relation to the topic we are discussing), I always do listen to my "Catholic leaders and follow [my] Catholic Faith." However, you have misjudged/condemned me because your understanding of our "Catholic Faith" [e.g., CCC 2309-2310, how the bishops exercise their Magisterium, etc.] has been flawed until you read this reply.

QUOTE: [O]n reflection, don't you find your actions strange at all? Have you not asked yourself how you and many of these over-zealous Catholics can say: “the Pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and then, in the next breath on the very same day in another thread say: “you must listen to the Holy Father and believe in what he teaches because he was put there by Christ, Himself”? Don’t you see the inconsistency and hypocrisy here? Are we Catholics or not? Are we to listen to the Ordinary Magisterium or not?

ANSWERS: Ed, since the answers to these questions can be found in, or deduced from, my earlier COMMENTs and ANSWERs, I am going to avoid being guilty of the repetitiousness that I just criticized above.

God bless you.
John
PS: If time permits, I will read your long reply to Joe over this weekend. I hope that I won't find anything new to which I'll need to reply. Of course, Joe can defend himself too.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 26, 2003.

"Then, because you wrongly thought that every word written/spoken by popes and bishops is an exercise of their Magisterium (teaching authority)..."

Woah!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.

[topping for a future glance]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

Ed-Catholic,

Are you Mr. Lauzon?

Pleaaaaaaase don't write something that looooooooooooooooong. Most people will scroll through something that long. It takes to much time to read that Ed.

I think you should be able to get your point across in .40 of the words you typed.[I just read another poster posting that you repeated yourself three times-maybe thats why its so long?]

-- David (David@excite.com), April 27, 2003.

Poor old John and Joe have desperately pinned their hopes on 2309-10.

AFter realsing the futility and absurdity of trying to fit a pre emptive war (without clear and immediate threat of invasion of their own soil) into the just war theory they desperately scramble back into the CCC for something...anything...and what do they dig up? 2309- 10!!!!

Talk about clutching at straws and Eds done a truely wonderful job correcting Joes obvious errors through twisting this reponsibility of governments with the role of the church.

ALone (and I mean "alone" as no reputable theologian or Bishop in the world would bend the truth enough to support their "arguments"). Sadly, but no doubt staunchly, they stand, the homespun moral theologian "experts" overiding the interpretations of the worlds clergy and our Holy Father.

Well done ED, a superb effort I salute you for your patience in taking the time to debunk these and other anti catholic republican lies as presented by Joe and John.

Eds post should be compulsory reading for those who wish to understand the united Catholic position, again its so comprehensive I cant begin to thankyou. I dont know where you find the time but BRAvo well done!!!!!!!!!!! :-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi.
Despite the extreme stupidity and offensiveness of your message, I can't even get angry with you -- because your position on this whole matter has been totally discredited by all the many concluded events. And it will be even more profoundly crushed as time goes on and more revelations come forth.

Really, your now-defeated, gutless point-of-view of the past two months, compounded by your worthless, willy-nilly insults, now leave you in a state of depression from which you are trying to resurrect yourself by lashing out again. You ought to be apologizing and begging our pardon for having put up with your trash. But, no. You are too macho to consider even a moment's humility.

Instead you write rubbish like this: "Poor old John and Joe have desperately pinned their hopes on 2309-10."

The only one "desperate" here is you -- trying to recover some shred of credibility.

More rubbish: "After realsing the futility and absurdity of trying to fit a pre emptive war (without clear and immediate threat of invasion of their own soil) into the just war theory they desperately scramble back into the CCC for something...anything...and what do they dig up? 2309-10!!!!"

Bull manure, little pal! I never said anything about a pre-emptive war. I found the Coalition's action justifiable on other grounds, but of course you only "remember" what you want to remember or what you assume that people said. Moreover, Joe has been openly speaking of 2309 for weeks. Again, you forgot or didn't notice, maybe because his arguments went in one of your ears and out the other ('cause there ain't no gray matter between?). (;p) Come on, little Kiwi bird! Give it up! You cannot defeat truth and rightness.

Courtenay, it is absolutely hilarious the way you prop up Ed L's logically handicapped and factually bereft comments to high heaven. Wishful thinking on your part! I mean, Ed's a great guy and friend who is right far more often than not, but I think that you and Ed must have some common ancestor -- the one from whom you both inherited a humongous "blind spot."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

I am having second thoughts about the way I just replied to Kiwi.
If I offended anyone (other than Kiwi) by my outspokenness, then I apologize.
I have to admit that I let myself become very irritated by his new words here. They came as a shock, because I thought that he would keep quiet about this subject at this point (with the conflict basically over and all the predictions of gloom and doom proved false). Some folks may be surprised at how strongly I came on because they are unaware of the fact that Kiwi unkindly hounded the supporters of the Coalition for over a month on perhaps ten separate threads. That's why I felt it was appropriate to reprimand him here and now.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Firstly this thread wasn’t for you and Joe to spin your political views. Read it “Thread dedicated to declarations by Church officials about the war on Iraq.” As for your homespun interpretations, no one cares less about what you have to say, your thoughts are as worthless as mine. SO put up the church decalartions that support your view or apologise for your errors and crawl into a hole.

I see you’ve offered a few more “barbs”. Ho, Ho, lame as ever. I could just spend my time pulling the utter piss out you in return but its not a fair fight. Its a war you cant possibly win. What should you do with your time rather than debate with me?

I don’t know, salt your money away, exercise more. Learn a foreign language and new sexual practices, no matter how abhorrent. Celebrate the basic good and decency in other people. You are hopeless at that sort of thing, but there is always a first time.

I know you as one of the most dishonest and arrogant men Ive ever met. Not to mention self righteous, blameless and self-hating. Continue to ignore your dreams John. Repression is good for your health. A life in the spectacular wild is no place to raise a family, relax and make amends with God.

Your superior attitude must make your working life a misery. You know how much better you are and you ought to tell your workmates in no uncertain terms. Losing your job could be just what you need. What was your first love? Go back to school and devise recipes not much more than bread and water. Remember John, you're lovely and God loves you.

Actually I can’t get angry with you either; we’ve been at each other for too long already. Although I'll mock you mercilessly if you persist. Your utilitarian mind bypasses Christian morality as it suits your political agenda. Its not my view, my view and yours are of little importance what is important is the view of the Church.

Your criticism of the views I’ve expressed is simply criticisms levelled at our Church. You believe the church and our Holy Father are “gutless and defeated”. I don’t. You believe the Church and our Holy Father “are offensive and stupid. I don’t. As for your criticisms of Ed’s excellent post Ill leave him to respond although there really is no need. As usual you’ve offered nothing to contradict him.

From previous experience I know you're a glutton for punishment and my weakness is that I’m only too happy to oblige so I need to be careful. There are many gentle souls here and may God bless them.

I know massive overkill in retaliation isn’t the Christian way but I’m not a good Christian man at times. Leave me alone John and I'll leave you alone. Try your typical underhand subtle putdowns with me and I won’t turn the other cheek. Got it?

Anyway its autumn here at the moment, lovely, brittle, thin, although getting colder. Waiting at Burger City the other day I thought of you.

I was bored waiting and saw an old arcade game “Lethal enforcer”, where Chicago cop “Don Marshall” turns into a maniac cop bent on venting some berserk rage. I recall playing it as a child many years ago, he still had the mullet haircut, perhaps that explains his ruthlessness? Now more than ever Marshall is a man for our times: the time of Marshall law.

There are various crime scenes in which “lethal enforcer” intervenes, including a chemical plant (where no doubt they are manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.)

It’s difficult not to shoot the hostages and innocent people as they get in the way of Marshall and his gun. My commanders voice shrieks when you kill someone innocent… “What are you doing?!”… “Concentrate man!”…Also a final “for f—ks sake!”

Actually theses admonishments are doubtful, what does Marshalls commanders expect? Collateral damage is a fact of war. Marshall draws his gun and continues to fire… killing a child, a chicken, a security guard, and a housewife. While the commander booms “concentrate man” etc Marshall isn’t punished, more villains appear and their threats of “eat lead pig” are eventually realised.

Another coin in the slot though and Marshall just kept coming back, a one-man shock and awe, funded by my military spending.

I left the shop and went out into the last of the autumn evening sunshine, basking in my achievement. I got the record score and in super quick time 20 mins. Critics might say my war was too bloody or not just, but I thought it went according to plan.

Filling my face with another chocolate coconut donut from “Dunkin Donuts and a coke from Mc Donalds I felt at peace.

See you John and take it easy ;-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

It amazes me that how when I take someone’s post and reply line for line to that post, that I am the one who is accused of creating longer than necessary threads. On most threads I really do attempt to limit my writing knowing full well that I tend to make threads longer than necessary. It’s a bad habit of mine and I apologise to all who read them. However, this is one issue that is far too important to be intimidated into making my remarks brief for the sake of brevity. On this particular issue, I feel I must say what has to be said and if some like David don’t like to read long threads then I suggest they skip my posts.

Yes David I am the same Ed Lauzon that has posted previously under another email address. John, I will now attempt to deal with your most recent comments.

John you wrote:

“ I think that you just referred to me as something just as bad, if not worse.”

Not a single one of my categorisations of you “ ignorance, patriotism, gullibility, blindness and/or pride” was meant to insult or injure but rather was designed to characterise the reasons you think the way you do about the war.

John you wrote:

“unless I somehow missed a published statement from the pope -- he NEVER came right out and made a judgment on this subject.”

John, on February 19, 2003, the Holy See, Monsignor Migliore addressed the Security Council of the United Nations. He said the following:

“The Holy See is convinced that in the efforts to draw strength from the wealth of peaceful tools provided by the international law, to resort to force would not be a just one.”

“The Holy See is closely following the developments on the ground and expresses its support for the efforts of the international community towards resolving the crisis within the sphere of the international legality.” “"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations Organization and international law itself remind us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations" (Address of Pope John Paul II to the Diplomatic Corps, 13 January 2003). On the issue of Iraq, the vast majority of the international community is calling for a diplomatic resolution of the dispute and for exploring all avenues for a peaceful settlement. That call should not be ignored. The Holy See encourages the parties concerned to keep the dialogue open that could bring about solutions in preventing a possible war and urges the international community to assume its responsibility in dealing with any failings by Iraq.”

John, on February 23, 2003, the Pope said, “Without giving in to difficulties, we must seek and pursue every possible path to avoid war, which always leads to mourning and grave consequences for everyone.”

John, Cardinal Pio Laghi’s (Special Envoy of John Paul II) called on George Bush on March 5, 2003 and delivered a personal letter from Pope John Paul II to George Bush. While giving us the gist of what was the Pope wrote and what the Cardinal discussed with George Bush on behalf of the Pope, the Cardinal in a letter dated March 12, 2003 to all Catholics (can be found on the Vatican site) expressed his regret that he could not release the content of the letter out of “respect for the President and importance of the moment.”

In a statement to the world in characterizing his meeting with the President and Pope John Paul II’s letter, the Cardinal said: “The Holy See maintains that there are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose. A decision regarding the use of military force can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations, but always taking into account the grave consequences of such an armed conflict: the suffering of the people of Iraq and those involved in the military operation, a further instability in the region and a new gulf between Islam and Christianity. I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world.”

John, we’ve already discussed here what the catechism says in this regard, that “all avenues for a peaceful solution must be rigorously pursued. Ten days after his meeting with the Cardinal, who told the president to examine all peaceful means to a solution and that all action should be taken through the United Nations, George Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave town. This hardly seems like prudently taking time to “rigorously explore” all peaceful avenues, wouldn’t you agree?

But John, more importantly, the Cardinal did also say, “I want to emphasize that there is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the Bishops in the United States, and the Church throughout the world.” John, this man is the SPECIAL ENVOY OF POPE JOHN PAUL II, himself! So, on behalf of John Paul John, he said, “The Holy See and the Bishops of the United States, and the Church throughout the world are UNITED”.

After meeting with Bush in an interview with reporters the Cardinal characterized what he said in (USA Today) as follows:

The Vatican stands by its view that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is immoral unless backed by the United Nations, Laghi said. "It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush. "There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose," Laghi said. "There is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the bishops in the United States, and the church throughout the world," he said. The Cardinal’s comments were widely reported throughout many daily newspapers in the United Sates.

John, we’ve already told you what all the Bishops from around the world have said, including your very own American Bishops. If the Holy See is saying that it is united with all of them, what do you think the position of the Holy See is? What do you think the position of the Pope is? Obviously, due to the diplomacy demanded by the moment the Pope is handling this matter very discreetly and cautiously as he should. Does he have to come out and condemn what George Bush has done as immoral before you finally acknowledge what his position is on this matter?

Then, on March 18, 2003, one day after George “unofficially” declared war by telling Saddam to leave town, the press office of the Holy See issued this statement:

“Whoever decides that all peaceful means that international law has put at our disposition have been exhausted assumes a serious responsibility before God, his conscience and history.” We know, if “all peaceful means” haven’t been pursued before war commences, the catechism clearly labels this as immoral hence, the Holy See, the Pope and the Bishops around the world feel this war is immoral.

John, you wrote:

“ Had he wanted to declare the proposed action "immoral" (Ed) or "unjustified" (Joe), he would have used very explicit and clear language...”

John, due to the very sensitive nature of the situation the Pope would only come out himself and condemn the war as immoral as a last resort. This is done rarely in these instances. The Pope and the Church are aware of other immoral acts by governments such a citizen abuse, persecution etc. on an on-going basis and for diplomatic reasons do not always come out and say so every time it they are made aware of it. It is only when these immoral acts are perpetuated and intensified that the Church will condemn them outright, such as the case of genocide. In this particular instance, had the war dragged out and the toll of human suffering escalated I am sure you would have finally seen the Pope formally and publicly chastise and condemn President Bush and the coalition for their actions.

John, you wrote:

“You are right, and it is much to be regretted, that you and "the rest of the world" oppose the side of courage and goodness, preferring to comprise the side that would have left the monsters "S. Hussein and sons" in power for another fifty years (torturing, murdering, thieving, raping imprisoning children, etc.).”

I don’t oppose the side of courage and goodness John. What I oppose is the immoral way in which some nations demonstrate courage and goodness. There you go again twisting the purpose the U.S. got into this war in the first place. The U.S. did not declare war on Iraq to liberate the suffering of the Iraqi people “(torturing, murdering, thieving, raping imprisoning children, etc.)” The U.S. declared war on Iraq because it claimed it had proof that Saddam Hussein had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The removal of the suffering of the Iraqi people was welcomed by-product of the victory in Iraq, but certainly not the reason the coalition went to war in the first place.

John you wrote:

“I was speaking about many other posts that Joe has written -- not his brand-new one about "info tech" at the Vatican,”

Sorry John, if I jumped the gun here but when you tell me over and over again that Joe has properly and adequately defended the cause of the United States in this war, I just assumed that even had you read this “info comment” that you would also agree with it. When you say, “Joe Stong has wonderfully well explained the facts about the conflict in every way -- up, down, left, right -- on many, many threads -- over the past month.”, I make the assumption that you are in complete agreement with Joe. I apologize as you now have clearly explained that you don’t agree with everything he says, which of course, I believed.

John, you wrote:

“The college of bishops, including the pope, is not synonymous with the term "Ordinary Magisterium" (or even just "Magisterium"). The word "magister" means teacher, and "magisterium" means "teaching authority. By extension, some people use the word Magisterium to mean "one or more men who are exercising their teaching authority." Finally, when a pope (or the body of bishops) teach in a "non- extraordinary" way (i.e., not "ex cathedra" and not in Council), they exercise their "Ordinary Magisterium.”

John, you are quite mistaken about this. The catechism clearly says,

“Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. .. For this reason every bishop exercises his ministry from within the episcopal college, in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college.” (CCC 877)

“Sacramental ministry in the Church, then, is at once a collegial and a personal service, exercised in the name of Christ. This is evidenced by the bonds between the episcopal college and its head, the successor of St. Peter, and in the relationship between the bishop's pastoral responsibility for his particular church and the common solicitude of the episcopal college for the universal Church.” (879)

The catechism goes on to say,

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a 'definitive manner,' they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful 'are to adhere to it with religious assent' which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.” CCC 892

John is says, “Without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner” when they teach it leads to a “better understanding” “in matters of faith and morals”. It can’t get any clearer than this and when they do teach that something is immoral, we are to give our “assent of faith”. You don’t need to have the teaching in a “definitive manner” (formal). They only need to “propose” the teaching. When all Bishops and the Pope say or “propose” something is immoral, you can count on it. That’s what “Ordinary” means John, it means in the regular “ordinary” daily individual service to the Church if they all proclaim the same thing then we have to give our assent to it. (CCC 877, 879)

John you wrote:

“They applied the limited facts known to them to certain general moral principles and offered what amounts to tentative or conditional advice.”

Careful here John, now you’re suggesting the Bishops and the Pope acted irresponsibly? The Catechism above (892) clearly states that the successors to the apostles - the Bishops are also given “divine assistance” in such matters. If all Bishops and the Pope teach that something is immoral then they have received “divine assistance” in doing so. Are you suggesting that God gave them “limited” assistance or “conditional” advice.

John you wrote:

“It is obvious how you would answer these general questions, and I believe that I would agree with your answers. However, this fact is irrelevant to the case at hand, because -- contrary to what you have thought -- the Church is not here asking me to "make a decision that goes against" my patriotism.”

The Church is not asking you to go against anything John, the Church has pronounced on the war in Iraq and you are not “asked” but rather “required” to give assent and I have proven it above.

John you wrote:

“ This must be the third or fourth time that you have made this incorrect statement.”

The reason I keep repeating myself is because people like you and Joe don’t read what I am saying or if you do, you twist my words around to suit your own needs and I will say it once more, “The Pope and virtually every bishop in the world have plainly and unequivocally stated the war in Iraq is immoral.”

John, on your comment about my use of the word “behoves”. You got me here! LOL! In my own defence however I would like to say that my spellchecker noticed the word misspelled and I inadvertently “accepted” it into my vocabulary. As for the wrong use of this word, it’s a bad habit I have. I always use this word as a synonym for “puzzles” and have done so from an early age. I also occasionally will use the word “irregardless” in my vocabulary. This word of course is a “double negative” and the correct term I should use is “regardless” but you know what? This abuse of the word “regardless” has occurred so often that dictionaries now use “irregardless” as a synonym. So, maybe sometime soon in the future if I can get people rallied around my use of the word “behooves” to describe “puzzles”, it too will be found in the dictionary. By the way, you too John, missed the original spelling of the word. It originally was spelled in two words - “be hooves”. (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

John, you wrote:

“He didn't convince me of anything! I was just happy to have such an articulate spokesman as Joe joining me here as an ally.”

I will let all who come here judge for themselves, just how “articulate” and coherent (my word added) Joe has been in defending his cause on the U.S. involvement on the war in Iraq.

ps. thanks for the kind words Kiwi!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 29, 2003.

Game , Set , Match. Well done again Ed. John ????????????????

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

Jmj

[I have not yet read Ed L's response to me.]
Wow, Kiwi. I thought I had previously seen the depths to which you could reach, but I guess you must be taking diving lessons, because you keep going lower and lower. You really should quit, because you just make more and more of a fool of yourself. Just an example or two of what I mean ...

QUOTE: Firstly this thread wasn’t for you and Joe to spin your political views. Read it 'Thread dedicated to declarations by Church officials about the war on Iraq.' As for your homespun interpretations, no one cares less about what you have to say, your thoughts are as worthless as mine. SO put up the church decalartions that support your view or apologise for your errors and crawl into a hole.

CORRECTION: You should do some checking before charging, so that you don't end up with a red face (in the deep hole into which you have crawled). Mateo and I DID post two "church declarations that support [my] view" [probably not read by lazy you], while you posted NO declarations of any kind. Instead, it was you and your "colleague in error" who turned this thread into an argument. [The evidence is above.]

QUOTE: I could just spend my time pulling the utter piss out you in return but its not a fair fight.

COMMENT: I have no idea what this vulgar comment means. I have to assume that it is some kind of gutter crud that is common in your lowlife subculture. It fits with the various obscenities you have tossed about at the forum

QUOTE: Its not my view, my view and yours are of little importance what is important is the view of the Church.

COMMENT: And that is why I allow my view to be conformed to that of the Church. You should try it more often.

QUOTE: As for your criticisms of Ed’s excellent post Ill leave him to respond although there really is no need. As usual you’ve offered nothing to contradict him.

CORRECTION: If anyone still needed of proof that you have a hole in your head, these words of yours provide that proof.

QUOTE: From previous experience I know you're a glutton for punishment and my weakness is that I’m only too happy to oblige so I need to be careful.

CORRECTION: I never desire punishment, and you are incapable of doling it out. You only dole out abuses, obscenities, and other kinds of inanities associated with immature, whining boys (for example, all that completely incoherent, meaningless fantasy about an arcade game with which you ended your post).

QUOTE: [Although I haven't read Ed L's latest reply to me, I noticed your comment following it:] Game , Set , Match. Well done again Ed. John ????????????????

COMMENT: The reality is that the "Match" was already won by Joe Stong and me. Ed L is just desperately replaying the points in his mind, back in the locker room. Even you realize this subconsciously. With typical bluster, you said, "Game, Set, Match." Well if the discussion is over, there was no point in your adding "John ???". The fact that you did that shows that you know that Ed L won no "Match" at all. Over the weekend, after writing my last message (in which I showed Ed how his previous message to me was so very wrong), I did go back and start to read his very long reply to Joe. But I had to stop when I saw that the whole thing was structured on the same false premise that I refuted in my message to Ed -- i.e., that the pope had called the approaching conflict "immoral." Just as Ed had repeated that false charge at least three times in writing to me, I saw him using it repeatedly in replying to Joe. I wasn't about to waste time reading that stuff. If he has done the same thing in his new reply to me, I won't even have to bother to respond.

God bless you with real Light.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Oh my Im on the floor laughing at your reply, I really shouldnt play games with you. I knew you wouldnt understand my reply, although I did ramble nonsense, I was probably stoned or something eh Gecik.

Yes the true JFG reveals himself, priceless folks. John the term "mutha fu..a" was invented for men like you. WHen you look into your wifes eyes you see ...MOM. Dont use your sexual abuse as an excuse to spread your hatred seek help.

Lookout tonight Mrs Gecik! A waring to neighbours of this man.... lockup your children the sicko is clealry frustrated at his weaknesses being revealed.

I just see him at his old computer, a dirty old man going through a nasty mid life crisis fuming away "Ill show the world Im worth something, I can prove something to the world...I am the man, yeah I am the man... people better not relax." Yes John you are the "Bus stop boxer" lookout kiddies stay away from bus stops and railway tracks Big bad John needs to prove himself.

Bite me pervert.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Ed L. I suspect that Joe did not respond to your extremely long message to him because (as he said in a similar case on another thread), "At this point, it is academic." In other words, he did not want to argue about the legitimacy of the Coalition's actions when the conflict was already 95% finished. I too don't want to argue about this any more. Fortunately, I know that you have not dented my position at all, so I don't need to say much more to you.

QUOTE: ... if some like David don’t like to read long threads then I suggest they skip my posts.

COMMENT: Actually, I was the first one on this thread to complain, not David. I recognize the problem of a message "looking" extra long because we need to quote what the other guy said. However, my complaint was that you said the same wrong thing at least three times in replying to me -- and, in the part of your very long reply to Joe that I read, I noticed this repetition again. You say that we can "skip [your] posts." But we don't want to skip them, because we know that you make many good contributions. We want that good stuff, but in fewer words, if at all possible.

Now, in my last reply to you I wrote this: "You [Ed] say here that the pope 'has declared this war to be immoral' ... I'm sorry, but I believe that ... you are wrong ... You used the word 'immoral' ... Actually -- unless I somehow missed a published statement from the pope -- he NEVER came right out and made a judgment [of 'immorality'] on this subject. I tried to watch for this kind of thing with an eagle eye, but it was never forthcoming."

In your response to these words of mine, Ed, you spent a lot of time and space quoting from various people (but only once briefly from the pope). Most significantly, in your quotations, there was NO reference to the word "immoral" [or "immorality" or "sin(ful)"]. Therefore, I stand by what I said. It would have been simple and honest for you to just tell me that I was right (in saying that the pope never called a proposed Coalition action "immoral"), instead of posting all those extraneous quotations. There was nothing of a final, judgmental nature in the statements. They did not represent "teachings" (doctrine), and they were not binding on anyone, being only opinions and exhortations offered to the leaders of the Coalition.

QUOTE: Ten days after his meeting with the Cardinal, who told the president to examine all peaceful means to a solution and that all action should be taken through the United Nations, George Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave town. This hardly seems like prudently taking time to “rigorously explore” all peaceful avenues, wouldn’t you agree?

COMMENT: I emphatically disagree. Even if he had given the ultimatum ONE day after meeting with the Cardinal, it wouldn't have troubled me. The reason is that the "examin[ing of] all peaceful means to a solution" had already been going on for twelve years (and with heightened intensity, for several months) before the meeting.

Ed, you then went into great length about what Cardinal Laghi said and did in the U.S., what he is quoted as having said to a newspaper, etc.. I find nothing in all that you quoted and wrote that represents a clear refutation of what I said -- namely, that the pope did not prejudge the Coalition's contemplated action as "immoral." The problem (as I think I have already stated) is that you are relying on your private interpretation of statements by Cdl. Laghi and others to arrive at a conclusion that fits your preconceived notions and desires. You WANT them to be saying that the Coalition acted immorally, so you demand that such a concept be extracted from people's words, even when it isn't there.

QUOTE: John, we’ve already told you what all the Bishops from around the world have said, including your very own American Bishops. If the Holy See is saying that it is united with all of them, what do you think the position of the Holy See is?

ANSWER: I'm glad you said this, because it presents all the support I need to conclude this debate. If you had taken the time carefully to read the statement from Bp. Wilton Gregory, the President of the USCCB [linked above, long ago, by Mateo], we should have been spared the ordeal of this thread's debate. You and Cardinal Laghi have said that the pope and the whole episcopate are united, so it follows that they are behind these words of Bp. Gregory -- and I thank you for this:

"Our conference's moral concerns and questions, as well as the call of the Holy Father to find alternatives to war, are well known and reflect our prudential judgments about the application of traditional Catholic teaching on the use of force in this case. ... War has serious consequences, [but] so could the failure to act. People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. [!!!] We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309)."

As far as I'm concerned, Ed L, the case is closed by this. I don't feel that it is necessary for me to respond to anything else. Most of the rest of the things you have said to me are an attempt (which I consider desperate and unsuccessful) to build a case on flimsy -- and never "direct" -- evidence. The idea of "immorality" is only in your mind, not on paper. It is an incessant and uncharitable refrain -- nothing short of a "mantra" -- that was abused in your previous message, was refuted by me, but then was used and abused even more often in the response I have now refuted. Clearly, it is contradicted by Bp. Gregory, from whose words we can see that the Coalition was able to act morally. Therefore, Ed L, even if you lack the courage to stop using this frivolous, unproved, unjustifiable charge ("immorality"), I know that other readers of this thread [at least sane ones not from New Zealand (;p)] will disregard your abuse of it.

Now, since this key "immorality" thesis of yours has been totally debunked in successive replies of mine (and most definitively by Bp. Gregory), I elect not to take time to show, in detail, how you were wrong about these subsequent subjects too:
(1) the erroneous claim that the Coalition acted merely because of WMD allegations,
(2) the painfully long and baseless attempt to claim that I was "quite mistaken" in what I said about exercises of the "Ordinary Magisterium" (when not a word I said contradicted the CCC passages quoted),
(3) the erroneous idea that I "suggest[ed] the Bishops and the Pope acted irresponsibly," when I did not criticize them in the least,
(4) the erroneous claim that "the Church has pronounced on the war in Iraq and [that I am] 'required' to give assent" to something

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Hey Paul could you please delete my above message to John, its utter garbage and has no place here. Im just bored of of trying to pretend I can tolerate the guy or be civil with him but I will from now on I will just ignore him. He is right my behaviour is very childish however his "Christian" facade makes me feel physically ill.

A serious warning to people. John has tried to be "nice and humble" over the last few weeks however its so false its just not funny. Scratch the surface and he will show himself for what he is. Essentially a very arrogant and evil man. He has driven so many people away, not only gentle true Christain regulars like Chris B, Chris Coose and Jean but even more concerning hundreds of young secular people, (who like me could learn better manners) but show some considerable intrest in learning about about the Church.

I cannot stress enough how much damage John does, he is a true pharisee. Its easy to look at the good side in people and John has his strengths but he is completely closed to the world. He sees the world outside his own superior little self righteous mind as a "lowlife subculture" not as Pope John Paul II and the Gospel calls us to view the world at all.

If this forum wasnt moderated John would be "hate target no 1", and not because he speaks the "truth",but because hes lost (or he may never have had) true love for his fellow man. He doesnt understand what it means to be a Catholic, (rich coming from me) but there are great examples of Catholic men here and John isnt one of them. He simply cannot understand today world and lacks the skills necessay to communicate meaningfully (and with respect and dignity of others opinions) with it.

He should find another calling because helping people discover Christ and the love he gives us is not his.

Blessings... and may Christ not judge me on my evil words above alone ;-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Thanks, Master Isherwood. You have now sunk so low that I need no longer pick your messages apart. Others can now see, with no trouble at all, how disturbed is your mind and how perverted is your language.
May Jesus have mercy on you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Jmj

My short message just above this one refers back to Kiwi's obnoxious message (three messages above ["Oh I'm on the floor laughing ...]

Moderator, please do not delete that message (as Kiwi requested that you do). People need to see what kind of person he is, so that they can know that they can put no trust in his later message ["Hey Paul ..."] or anything else he posts at this forum. Please do not let a guy who calls me an "evil man" get away with anything.

Everyone with any sense realizes that, even though I have called for some people to be banned, I don't really want anyone to leave, but rather to change. [That goes for Kiwi too.]
I have falsely been charged with having "driven" people away from here. Everyone with any sense knows that a non-moderator like me has no power to "drive" anyone away (especially not a moderator like C. Butler). When people leave here, it is their own free choice, not an action I have forced (as the word "driven" implies). The same goes for when I myself left twice. It was my choice. I was not "driven" away.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

John

My final reply to you ever as I didnt read you pathetic effort above before I posted. Surprise surprise you find an AMerican Bishop, who just happen to be searching for credibilty with the AMerican people after losing it over the sexual coverup. Given the current climate in AMerica since 9/11 his words are anything but objective IMHO certainly not when put into the context of The rest of the wolrds Bishops rather more reasoned and objective view of this war. Of course our Holy Father is best placed to guide us and his thoughts are clear. Even given this strange situation of blind fury in your country The Bishop has said nothing to support you. People need to read his full statement as posted by Mateo and then all the other world Bishops staements and then the Vaticans position as well as Pope JPII before pretending that Johns twisted attempts have a shred of value.

Lets examine what he said more closely anyway

>War has serious consequences, [but] so could the failure to act.

Well true but what is considered more serious will determine the justness of the war obviously so lets read on.......

>People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case.

Well yes of course, no shit John! But this doesnt support you!

People of good will is a far wider group than the Catholic Church and the Church position, as so well outlined By Ed and Mateo above is clear. THIS WAR IS NOT JUST,over and over again from every possible Catholic source you can find....

>We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).

The important words here than John doesnt get are "understand and respect" that doesnt mean "agree with"! It is a simple acknowledgemnent that the President not the Bishop himself who will be making the decision. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE WAR OR SOME SORT OF "HANDING OVER OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY".

May God help you John,

Ive gotta go I hope Ed takes the time to respond tonight.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Moderator, please do not delete that message (as Kiwi requested that you do).

Moderator please ignore the village idiot, I would like that message and any others you find offensive removed please and hope that any decision you make to remove or otherwise will not be influenced by the above evil man.

Thankyou

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Kiwi,

This is the fifth different different time that I rember you shooting off with your foul mouth and than asking the Moderator to delete it.

You did it last on the Marriuanna thread when you were posting about getting high a few times a month. Its past time for you to watch that foul mouth.

I would love to teach you a lesson boy! I also noticed when you get angry you have talked of (sexual abuse with kids several different times). This is gross to hear repeated. Is there a reason for this? Wern't you the fellow who said Mr. Chavez gets a sexual release with this forum before?(and had the Moderator delete it)

Cool it with the sex garbage attacks!

Watch what you say and you won't to ask the Moderator to clean up behind you on a regular basis.

-- David (David@excite.com), April 30, 2003.

Thank you, David.
You have a very good grasp of the situation.
The poor boy needs a major mental and spiritual healing.
Let's pray for the miracle that will be needed.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Kiwi,

Hi David

This is the fifth different different time that I rember you shooting off with your foul mouth and than asking the Moderator to delete it.

>Five times in thousands of posts over 13 months aint to bad is it?

You did it last on the Marriuanna thread when you were posting about getting high a few times a month.

> David this is a lie I never said such a thing.

Its past time for you to watch that foul mouth.

>True

I would love to teach you a lesson boy!

>SO you want a shot at the title?!

I also noticed when you get angry you have talked of (sexual abuse with kids several different times). This is gross to hear repeated. Is there a reason for this?

>Yes Im being childish

Wern't you the fellow who said Mr. Chavez gets a sexual release with this forum before?(and had the Moderator delete it)

>Yeah me and Eugene have had our moments, in which he was not entirely without blame but I realised sometime ago he is a very good man and apologised to him.

Cool it with the sex garbage attacks!

>Sure thing!

Watch what you say and you won't to ask the Moderator to clean up behind you on a regular basis.

>Will do!

See ya, :-).

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

John, I've explained my position on this thread "ad nauseum". In defending my position, I could refute much of what you say, however, I think we're both so firmly entrenced in our positions that it will accomplish very little. I will let what I have said here stand and leave it at that. I respect your freedom to believe in what you do and I am sure you join me in the hope that this conflict is resolved quickly and fairly for all concerned.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 01, 2003.

DAVID S says: This is the fifth different different time that I rember you shooting off with your foul mouth and than asking the Moderator to delete it.
KIWI says: Five times in thousands of posts over 13 months aint too bad is it?
ME: Yes, it is "too bad." Considering the fact that scores of people have left tens of thousands of posts without getting "foul-mouthed" -- yes, five times is "too bad." Or, should I say ... the first time was "bad" the second was "too bad," and the fifth time makes one worthy of being banned. And actually, you have left just 1,116 posts, not "thousands," according to the statistics page. But hyperbole is a lesser vice than obscenity!

DAVID S: You did it last on the Marriuanna thread when you were posting about getting high a few times a month.
KIWI on Apr. 30, 2003: David this is a lie I never said such a thing.
KIWI on Nov. 28, 2002 (from http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AFuY):< br> "I think everyone knows smoking dope aint too good for you. Anyone who has smoked a bit will know its much harsher on the throat, yet personally Id rather take my chances with a natural herb with no additives than 400 toxic nasties and addictive substances packed into a cigarette by companies to get you addicted. ... Im a rather big drinker, very occasional smoker (1 or 2 a month) and dont take any illegal substances. ... I can go weeks without a drink sometimes! The poor old liver takes a bashing every now and then, but so far so good all organs intact. ... Someone tells me that even if you damage it by drinking, if you stop drinking it will repair itself. True? Im kind of countinmg on this."
ME: I don't think that David's use of the word "few" (instead of "1 or 2") makes him a liar.

God bless you.
John
PS to Ed L: Thanks, Ed. I wish that I had seen this message from you before I gave you a "tongue-lashing" on another thread (about the WMD=0 comment)!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Kiwi,

I am suprised you doubted my memory about this. I don't lie!

I just read your post to me. If I rember correctley you said you get HIGH a few times a month. I can top two different thread[s] if you want about you bragging about doing a illegal drug.

Please, DON'T smoke another one. :-)

God bless you

PS:You owe me an apology for calling me a "liar".(I can prove I'm not)

-- David (David@excite.com), May 02, 2003.

David let me clear up the confusion, I dont smoke drugs.

"very occasional smoker (1 or 2 a month)"

As in cigarettes .

"dont take any illegal substances"

Not for any legal reason, ( I believe drug laws are a waste of time for adults but thats another argument Id rather not begin) just personal preference, this includes "Marriuanna".

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

Kiwi,

There was no confusion to clear up on my part. You are changing the smoking pot into cigarettes now. But thats cool if thats what you prefer to do.

If you read the thread you will see how you wern't talking about smoking cigarettes though. At least its not a chemical like PCP. I read that affects people years later.

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), May 04, 2003.

sigh

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

Ker-bump!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 07, 2004.