What exactly does the Pope say? Why is he against the war?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hello everyone, I am a strong Catholic teenager who is somewhat confused here. I have heard both sides of the issue about the War in Iraq, and it seems from the arguements that I have heard that it is a good thing that we are going in there and freeing the Iraqis. Now, I have heard that the pope is against this war. So I really consider myself against it, but I have nothing to say to the arguements in my mind for the war. Why is the pope agaisnt the war? What exactly did he say, and where can I find his statements?? I realize that what he says is binding, and I will follow... I just want to have an answer for the people I discuss that matter with. Many thanks... =)

-- Matthew (Lyric_Wanderer@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003

Answers

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

I also want to mention that I have been sitting here for the past couple of hours reading over the numerous posts on the subject at hand, but none of them seemed to answer my questions. So if this has already been addressed, I apologize and request that I might be directed to the missed source of information. =)

-- Matthew (Lyric_Wanderer@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Hi Matthew,

Cool name! Anyway, here is a thread dedicated to Church statements regarding Iraq.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 03, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Thanks Mateo, ;-)

I went to you link, but all of the links there were either from bishops or news articles talking about the pope being anti-war, but not reasoning why... Feel free to mention what the pope's arguments are in your own mind. Because I have not heard one arguement from anit-war site or article that makes any sense to me. They claim that Bush (aka "Hitler") is after the Iraqi oil fiels... totally absurd... we could have had the Kuwaiti oil fields back in 91, but we gave them back to them. Bush has proposed also opening our oil reserves in Alaska as well... so this is clearly not about oil. It really makes me frustrated when I see these ignorant "peace protesters" who say "no blood for oil".

As for it being a just war... I think back to WWII... How would have things been different if we had started the war before Hilter was ready instead of letting him choose the times and places? Saddam is absolutely no better than Hilter. I am sure you have all heard of the atrocities done by that... animal... These crimes he has committed are so violently evil, that I believe they cry out to heaven for vengeance. I also believe that Pres. Bush has heard their cry and is actually doing something about it regardless of whatever the world thinks. Now I know many people have claimed that we should have international approval before entering into such a conflict, but since when has doing something right needed the world's approval?

Ach! Anyways... please let me know what is on the pope's mind.

BTW I have heard that the pope is afraid that the Iraq situation will damage Christian-Muslim relations and spark an anti-western crusade. But it seems to me that the crusade is already there and manifested itself on Sept. 11.

-- Matthew (Lyric_Wanderer@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Matthew,

I applaud your conviction and desire to understand the positions. I am a practicing Catholic fyi and I am strongly in support of the war and the Coalition of the willing. Your statement that "what he says is binding" re: the pope is only true when it comes to Catholic doctrine. It is perfectly acceptable and okay to agree or disagree with the pope when it comes to matters outside of Catholic doctrine, e.g., geopolitical matters such as the war in Iraq.

What is the pope thinking? Good question. Not too sure myself. Candidly and with all due respect, I am disappointed with his statements and those that have come from the Vatican and various cardinals. They have caused consternation amongst many Catholics who feel conflicted since they hold different views. I suspect part of the pope's thought process has to do with the Muslim/Christian conflict you referenced. I suspect part of it has to do with the general desire to seek peace, which is understandable and admirable on many levels, but simply not feasible in this instance without conflict.

As for where you can find what he said, I went to google and typed in key words - pope, iraq, war, bush - and proceeded to read article after article...

All the best to you and keep the faith!

Bob M

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Jmj
Hello, Matthew.

You have asked: "Why is the pope against the war?" ... and ... "Feel free to mention what the pope's arguments are in your own mind." ... and ... "please let me know what is on the pope's mind."

I wish that we were fully capable of answering you. We cannot do a good job of it, because Pope John Paul II himself chose to make several brief exhortations toward peace, but not to follow these with the kind of argumentation and explanations of his positions to which we have been accustomed to reading in his many great documents.

In my opinion, this papal reticence itself was evidence of the fact that his comments were his own private "cry of the heart" -- his sincere wishes and recommendations -- and certainly not a form of demand or binding or doctrine upon people.

I will not presume to claim that I can read the pope's mind. I cannot state with certainty why he said the things he said. But I can attempt a bit of speculation, by pointing out some of the pope's life experiences -- events that may well have influenced him to make such fervent exhortations against war.

Pre-papacy experiences:

1. He was born in 1920 in Poland. Surely, as a child, he saw the devastating effects of World War I: poverty, destruction, widows and children with deceased fathers, veterans who had lost limbs or who had been gassed. It may be almost unbearable for him to think about these kinds of things being relived in Iraq and/or in the coalition countries.

2. On the other hand, he is not an "anti-military" man, having always greeted uniformed visitors to the Vatican with love and respect. His own father was a military officer in WWI, I believe.

3. He lived through World War II as a seminarian in Poland. I don't have to list all the terrible things he must have seen and heard about, how he could easily have been killed himself, etc.. Again, he perhaps hates the thought of people today having to go through similar experiences.

Experiences as pope:

1. He is the Vicar of Christ who knows that he must preach the Beatitudes, including "Blessed are the peacemakers ..."

2. He has assumed the mantle of all the popes of his lifetime (and even for some years before his birth) who spoke out untiringly for peace and against violent war. I do not believe that Pope Pius XII, before or during WWII, spoke out in favor of military conflict, but rather in favor of diplomacy and peace. On the other hand, though, I have never heard that Pope Pius, at any time (before/during/after the war), condemned the Allies for the actions they took.

3. Pope John Paul II has received countless visits from governmental and religious leaders who have recounted to him many terrible tales of civil wars and regional conflicts. Now perhaps he was striving to persuade others to avoid the possibility of similar experiences.

4. Through the past decade, he has had many contacts with a very outspoken leader of Catholics in Baghdad (Bishop Raphael Bidawid). These brother bishops both must have beeb keen to protect the lives of all Catholics in Iraq by the avoidance of war.

5. The pope realizes that Catholics comprise a small minority (< 4%) in Iraq and that they are under a madman [S. Hus(in)sein] who has used torture and murder brutally to oppress another minority (Kurds) and even a majority (Shi'ite Moslems). Just as Pope Pius XII had to use great discretion in expressing disapproval of Nazi actions (to protect the lives of Jews and Catholics), so our present pope has tempered his statements against the insane leader of Iraq and his barbarian goons. This reticence in turn has fooled many Catholics into believing that the pope thinks that both sides in this conflict are on equal moral footing. The pope knew that he could far more frankly exhort the Coalition nations to peace than he could reprimand Iraq, even though he knew that all the evil in this case was being perpetrated by the Tikrit Monster.

It is hard to imagine a more "just war" than the one now being waged.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.



Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

In my opinion, this papal reticence itself was evidence of the fact that his comments were his own private "cry of the heart" -- his sincere wishes and recommendations -- and certainly not a form of demand or binding or doctrine upon people.

Are you referring to the pastoral second Vatican coucnil here? It's seems a bit unclear to me in the context you put it in.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

What I mean is, it's kind of interesting that you are using a similiar argument to what traditionalists use to withhold assent from the Pope based on an presence of an item of a non-binding nature.

In the case of no salvation outside the Church, for instance, or ecumenism in general, I would say that if whatever it is that is promulgated compromises doctrine then it would be obviously something not requiring assent. Then I would point to the fact that it was a pastoral council that did this and not a dogmatic council; that's pretty clear enough. Then I would say that the action of the Holy Spirit prevented such things from occurring in a dogmatic council. Are you with me so far? Alright. Then I would say that anything else in that council which upholds the doctrines of the ages would themselves require assent... but that wouldn't be newsworthy, really.

Now turn to this issue of war in Iraq. You say it is ok to withhold assent from the Pontiff in regards to this war. The principle by which you come to this conclusion is clear... an invocation of the concept of separation of Church and state.

Funny thing is, I believe that the pope needs to be assented to here; that true assent to the pope is expressed here by not lending our proxy consent to this war.

Based on what? Based on the fact that the concept of separation of Church and state is a concept that is in contradiction with Catholic doctrine, and it is a concept that has been absolutely, positively and clearly condemned by Rome in the Syllabus of Errors and elsewhere as well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

V. Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

VI. Errors About Civil Society, Considered Both in itself and in its Relation to the Church.

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. -- Ibid.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics.

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 04, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

John and Bob,

Here are current quotes from Fr. Levis who is the Q&A Catholic Doctrine and Catechetics expert for the EWTN website.

Fr. Robert Levis is the founding director (emeritus) of the Graduate Catechetical Institute, a pontifical institute at Gannon University.

QUOTE: Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 03-31-2003:

Dear Bryan, Yes, the Pope said this war is immoral, but he also teaches the responsibility for engaging in war rests with our governmental leaders who have this proper duty of deciding. They listen to the Holy Father but do not agree with him and judge that they have sufficient reason to initiate conscientially a war. Fr. Bob Levis

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 04-03-2003:

Dear Friend, I have seen in several different Catholic newspapers the papal statement that, in his judgment, this Iraq war is immoral. Fr. Bob Levis

UNQUOTE

Anyone (nation) who directly wages war on Iraq under current circumstances is in disagreement with the pope's sound judgement on a moral matter.

Sometimes we don't see what the Holy Spirit's reasons are when he speaks through the Vicar of Christ but that does not change our duty to remain united as Catholics with the pope.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 04, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Mike,

Thank you for sharing the quotes from Fr. Levis. He certainly sounds more knowledgeable on Catholic doctrine than myself. That said, I know there are a great many other intelligent and informed leaders within the Church who support the war effort - reference the dissenting bishops who refused to take an anti-war stance back a few weeks ago. Are these bishops guilty of failing their duty to the pope?

I think we all can agree on a couple of basics. We all strive to do what is right, namely God's will. As Catholics we have a duty to look to the Church and the pope for guidance in our quest to do His will.

But I'm sorry, I have a serious problem 'falling in line' here. This is precisely why our Catholic brethren rightfully criticize us for not thinking on our own in certain instances. I will not surrender my own common sense and logic to the pope in this instance since (1) he is not an expert in geopolitical matters and nor are international matters akin to Catholic doctrine, i.e., no duty to remain united with the pope (2) he is not privy to intelligence that Bush, Blair and other coalition leaders are and (3) the Church is not exactly 'pure' when it comes to morality. I do not seek to criticize any Church leaders, but I really struggle with the morality of Church leaders looking the other way when various priests were sexually abusing children. I submit to you that the actions of various Church leaders were irresponsible and immoral, not to mention illegal. I don't stand in judgment of them as that is not my place and I trust that their intentions were genuine and good, but simply lacked proper judgment. So, my point is that I'm not so sure that the Church or pope is the unquestioned authority when it comes to morality.

I fail to see how allowing the evil Butcher of Baghdad to continue to oppress, rape, torture, poison, and murder his people is moral. I fail to see how allowing the sinister leader of Iraq to continue to amass weapons of mass destruction is moral when there can be no reasonable doubt that he will use them against innocent people. Whatever happened to sins of omission?

With all due respect, the pope is simply not an expert in geopolitical matters. While I applaud his appeal and desire for peace (and share it frankly), I do not see how sitting on our hands and allowing the current situation to go unchecked could be anything but sinful and immoral.

To suggest that we need to be united as Catholics with the pope on everything and anything is faulty. It's uncomfortable to hold a different opinion and to speak out and acknowledge as much, but I fail to see how it can be anything but okay. The implied blind obedience on all matters is one of many reasons why we have chased away too many former Catholics. We need to learn from the past and get it right.

Let's unite with the pope and the Church on matters of Catholic doctrine and let's respectfully come to our own opinions on other matters.

Bob M

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.



Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

If one of the ways the Pope can speak infallibly is when teaching on faith and morals from the Chair of Peter, then could we not deduce he was speaking infallibly when he has stated, more than once, that “in his judgement, the war in Iraq is immoral”? Is Pope John Paul not making a statement on morals here as Vicar of Christ?

Bob, you said, “we have a duty to look to the Church and the pope for guidance in our quest to do His will” and I certainly agree with you.

Then you said, “ he (the Pope) is not an expert in geopolitical matters and nor are international matters akin to Catholic doctrine, i.e., no duty to remain united with the pope”. The Pope’s mandate as defined by Jesus did not involve acquiring geopolitical skills. His mandate is to call them as He sees them as the Vicar of Christ. In this case that is exactly what he has done. It is no accident that the Pope has stated this more than once. Furthermore, you have implied that in political matters, we are not bound to submit to what the Church thinks is best for us. Bob, I regret to inform you that this is not the case when these political matters involve faith or morals. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established in the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:15- 17). Geopolitical theories and philosophies come and go, governments founded by man come and go, but the Truth stands forever. The Church will be here till the end of time. Jesus told us so.

Bob, you said, “he (the Pope) is not privy to intelligence that Bush, Blair and other coalition leaders are”. It seems to me that whatever “intelligence” Bush and Blair have they have not shared it with the rest of the world, or if they have, it was not very convincing in getting other countries around the world to side with them. Why didn’t Bush and Blair give their “intelligence” to the weapons inspectors if they had it instead of allowing the inspectors to run around Iraq chasing down dead-ends for several months? If the coalition had this “intelligence” why didn’t it just plug the coordinates into a missile-guided “smart” bomb and end the problem all right there by blowing them all up?

You said, “the Church is not exactly 'pure' when it comes to morality. I do not seek to criticize any Church leaders, but I really struggle with the morality of Church leaders looking the other way when various priests were sexually abusing children. I submit to you that the actions of various Church leaders were irresponsible and immoral, not to mention illegal. I don't stand in judgment of them as that is not my place and I trust that their intentions were genuine and good, but simply lacked proper judgment. So, my point is that I'm not so sure that the Church or pope is the unquestioned authority when it comes to morality.” Bob, I caution you to be very careful when slandering the Church. It is one thing to slander Her representatives on earth and that, in and of itself, is a serious matter and anyone who does will have to answer for his actions. But, to slander the Church Herself, who is Truth itself, who is the body of Jesus Christ, Herself, is tantamount to committing sacrilege.

Bob, you said, “I fail to see how allowing the evil Butcher of Baghdad to continue to oppress, rape, torture, poison, and murder his people is moral. I fail to see how allowing the sinister leader of Iraq to continue to amass weapons of mass destruction is moral when there can be no reasonable doubt that he will use them against innocent people. Whatever happened to sins of omission?” Is that what this is all about - freeing the people of Iraq from a butcher? I thought it was about clear proof of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. If its all about eradicating butchers in the world, why hasn’t the U.S.A. invaded Cuba by now to free the citizens of that country of the all the oppression they have endured. If it’s all about ridding the world of butchers, where was the U.S.A. when genocide was taking place in Rwanda and where is it now in the myriad of other places it is taking place right now around the world, more particularly in Central and South America, in Indonesia, in Africa? As the “geopolitical” reputation of the U.S.A. begins to wane badly, we are hearing less and less about WMD and more and more about “freeing the people of Iraq”! What a righteous and noble act, but tell me Bob, who appointed the coalition Saviours of the World?

Bob, you said, “With all due respect, the pope is simply not an expert in geopolitical matters. While I applaud his appeal and desire for peace (and share it frankly), I do not see how sitting on our hands and allowing the current situation to go unchecked could be anything but sinful and immoral.” Respect? You call what you’ve said here respect? No one was sitting on their hands. I will grant that a total consensus of world opinion to go to war was in all probability an impossibility however, it was not out of the realm of possibilities that given another 90 days or so, the substantial majority of nations around the world would have agreed that all avenues had been explored and that war was the only alternative in disarming Iraq. Were you not aware that the Pope met with several key players in this problem on several occasions in person or through emissaries?

Bob, you said, “To suggest that we need to be united as Catholics with the pope on everything and anything is faulty.” There’s that generalization again! Whoever said Catholics must believe the Pope in “everything and anything”? When a sound argument is lacking in a discussion, the parameters of the argument are always expanded to muddy the waters of clarity more so that, faulty arguments will not be seen for what they really are - full of holes. You said, “The implied blind obedience on all matters is one of many reasons why we have chased away too many former Catholics”. I beg to disagree with you Bob. The reason these Catholics have left is not because they have been “chased away”. It is because they demonstrated the same lack of respect, obedience and humility that you have.

And lastly Bob, you said, “Let's unite with the pope and the Church on matters of Catholic doctrine and let's respectfully come to our own opinions on other matters.” Yeah right, like good little church goers, let’s all nod our heads in agreement with the pastor in Church on Sunday morning, and then really go about our own business the rest of the week! The Catholic faith is an integrity - it’s a vocation! It’s not always easy to live out, but it’s the only way to paradise. Jesus gave us the most precious pearl in the universe in the form of His Church to watch over us, because He wanted nothing to harm His most precious possession - us. Then as if that wasn’t enough he sends us outstanding Vicars like Pope John Paul II, to inspire us to greater charity and love for others. Bob, you go ahead and come to “your own opinion” if you like, but as for me, I’ll stop and listen to what men like our Holy Father have to say before I make up my mind.



-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, it sounds like you're parting ways with the Pope's judgement for the wrong reasons. John Paul II is very well-informed about geo- political matters--and quite frankly, your hard split between geopolitical matters and matters of faith is not only artificial, it's also hurtful. Just think of the kinds of distortions people come up with in the name restricting the Pope's teachings to "matters of faith."

Sometimes "matters of morals" are inextricably intertwined with geopolitical matters. Not only does the Pope have the authority to denounce a military effort, but (as is increasingly clear the more he speaks) such denouncements are unambiguous and leave very little room for dissent.

I'm actually more than a little surprised that JFG supports the war, but frankly I am thankful his comments are more measured and wise than Bob's.

Just a few points of clarification:

-Infallibility, and most especially Ex Cathedra infallibility, have nothing to do with this entire discussion. Infallibility is primarily a signifier that a doctrine of faith and morals will not change.

-Temporal assent; that is, assent in all non-infallible Church teaching, is still a moral imperative, and one that (by my understanding) this issue calls for.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

"Temporal assent; that is, assent in all non-infallible Church teaching, is still a moral imperative, and one that (by my understanding) this issue calls for."

Thanks Skoobouy youve said in a sentence what Ive tried to explain unsucessfully in 20,000 words of huffing and puffing. Just shows you what a bit of proper instruction and correct theological training can do for someone. You must shake your head in amazement with some of the stuff we spout out!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Pastor Aeternus states, "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church...."

Lumen Gentium 25 backed this up when is stated, "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful——who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32)——he proclaims in an absolute decision [Lat. defi-nitivo actu] a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals."

In Gaudium et Spes we are told,

“For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.” (G&S 81)

and...

“Since peace must be born of mutual trust between nations and not be imposed on them through a fear of the available weapons, everyone must labor to put an end at last to the arms race, and to make a true beginning of disarmament, not unilaterally indeed, but proceeding at an equal pace according to agreement, and backed up by true and workable safeguards.” (G&S 81)

Is it such a stretch to claim the Pope’s (Church’s) teachings (statements) on war as they apply to war with Iraq have been taught infallibly? Perhaps! But in any event Skoobouy’s comment regarding “temporal assent” remains extremely relevant. Isn’t the reason that temporal assent is, in his words, “still a moral imperative” because, by extension, it still requires the assent of faith as described or clarified by the Holy Father when he speaks in such matters?

To wit, the Catechism states:

“CCC 892 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"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

My last post should have included the final sentence, “In regards to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, I don’t know of any bishops who are not in agreement with the Holy Father concerning the statements he has made about the war with Iraq.”

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob M.,

You said: This is precisely why our Catholic brethren rightfully criticize us for not thinking on our own in certain instances. I will not surrender my own common sense and logic to the pope in this instance...I'm not so sure that the Church or pope is the unquestioned authority when it comes to morality.

Reply: Are you a Catholic?

You said: I fail to see how allowing the evil Butcher of Baghdad to continue to oppress, rape, torture, poison, and murder his people is moral.

Reply: It is an evil thing. But in following the reasoning that we ought to use bombs to stop this, then why doesn’t the U.S. military blow up American abortion clinics with the personnel in them.? There is just as much evil murder going on there if not more. Exaggeration aside, abortion mills ought to be shut down. But of course that would mean we'd have to follow Christ's teaching about taking the plank out of our own eye before we try to take the speck or plank out of our Iraqi brother's eye.

You said: The implied blind obedience on all matters is one of many reasons why we have chased away too many former Catholics

Reply: Greed, lust and power excesses in the culture as a whole, including in the churchmen, have more to do with Catholics losing faith. But these excesses are not the verbal instructions given to the flock for their guidance. If you blame things on "blind" obedience to the pope, you sound like a Catholic ready for a heresy. The problem is lack of obedience to the Church. And both the flock and the leadership fails in this obedience at times. But the sound direction is always present from the chair of Peter and those united with him. Anyone is capable of deviating from this, from the bishops down to lay person. It sounds like you are saying that obedience in general is blindness, thinking like this flows from pride. It may be difficult to be obedient, that I will agree with.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Wow, much to respond to. I'll try and hit the highlights...

Ed - your deduction that the pope's statements/position on the war with Iraq is infallible is erroneous. I am glad to see that you conceded as much in a later post. As for the US's sharing of intelligence, some of it was shared. But to expect that we share all that we have is naive due to the compromising of sources and methods, not to mention that we simply cannot trust the duplicitous French and Syrian leaders, not to mention others... As for my alleged slandering of the Church, I'm sorry that you came to that conclusion but I fail to see where or how I slandered the Church. To say that I don't agree with the pope on the war - that's slander? To bring up a disappointing episode in Church history re: the abuse scandal - how is that sacrilege? To acknowledge that many church leaders did not act appropriately/legally/morally - this is all a fact and disappointing to all of us. To accuse me of slander and sacrilege for as much is slanderous in and of itself!

Ed - you ask why the US hasn't invaded Cuba? Lots of good reasons. First, there is not a serious threat to our security. Next, while it is an oppressive state, it does not begin to compare to the likes of Iraq. Cuba does not possess nor has it used weapons of mass destruction on its own people and its neighbors. Cuba is not in violation of 17 UN Security Councils, the cease-fire agreement from the last war, and on and on and on. So, Ed, don't go there...

Ed - you ask where was the US when genocide took place in Rwanda? GREAT QUESTION!!! Answer: we sat on our hands and let evil triumph. Shame on us, shame on Clinton, and shame on the UN. Oh by the way, statements coming from the Vatican that say the war in Iraq is not moral since the UN has not fully and wholly backed it is devoid of logic and reason. Implication here is that the UN is the arbiter of morality? So as long as the French and others have duplicitous agendas, effectively they decide what is moral? I can't accept that and nor should you.

Ed - this war is in fact first and foremost about WMD. It is about ensuring that Iraq is stripped of its stock and ability to produce WMD. The war is also about liberating the Iraqi people. And this has begun just in case you haven't been watching the news...

Ed - another 90 days and the substantial majority of nations would have agreed to go to war? I don't think so. France came out and said they will not support any further resolution, period. Ed, are you saying that 12 years wasn't long enough? Truth is that many nations/leaders lack the courage of their convictions... And yes, I was very well aware that the Pope had met with several key players, etc. That is commendable in attempting to seek a peaceful solution. Just as commendable in my eyes as President Bush going to the pathetically weak and irrelevant UN Security Council in the fall, only to see it stumble and prove its irrelevance all over again. But I applaud President Bush and the pope for making those last ditch efforts for peace.

Skoobouy - I agree with you that JFG is intelligent and articulate. Let's just say I agree that his arguments are more measured than mine and that he is wiser - what is your point? Or are you just trying to be critical???

Since you all like quotes, I have a couple for you.

"If possible, on your part, live at peace with all." Rom 12:18 It doesn't say live at peace no matter what. It doesn't say if you go to war it is immoral and sinful. It says strive for peace whenever possible. 12 years and 17 resolutions later we have met this test!!!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its recent doctrinal note entitled "On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" makes the case that there is nothing wrong with believing that a pope (this pope) and his top aides can err in their political or social judgments. Furthermore, it reaffirms "the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good."

Let's call a spade a spade. The fact that many Catholics draw conclusions that are at odds with the pope is merely dissent from non- infallible papal statements.

Bob M

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, you said, “But to expect that we share all that we have is naive due to the compromising of sources and methods, not to mention that we simply cannot trust the duplicitous French and Syrian leaders, not to mention others...” Yet it is okay to ask these same countries who have been given no information to put their soldiers on the line for what many experts are quickly coming to realize is American Imperialism. And by the way, is Canada one of these countries that can’t be trusted with information and yet are expected to send sons and daughters to their death for as yet, an unproven cause?

You said, “To bring up a disappointing episode in Church history re: the abuse scandal - how is that sacrilege?” I will ask the same question others have here Bob, are you Catholic? In these few words you have accused the Church (not a small minority of officials of the Church) of committing serious, grave sin. If you are Catholic then you know doubt realize that our Church is Jesus Christ, Himself. The Church, the author of Truth, cannot sin and to imply that it has is to imply that Jesus has. To imply that Jesus has sinned is sacrilege. It’s one thing to accuse a minority of individuals in the Church of wrongdoing but quite another to accuse the Church, Herself of serious error. When done knowingly, this is heresy and sacrilege in the highest order.

Bob, you said in answer to my question of why hasn’t the U.S. invaded Cuba, “Lots of good reasons. First, there is not a serious threat to our security.” Yeah right! Sadaam was a very big imminent threat to the United Sates that couldn’t wait to be dealt with in 90 days but rather had to be eradicated immediately. Give me a break! The real reason the U.S. couldn't wait any longer is that George W. jumped the gun and had 220,000 troups sitting around in the Persian Gulf with nothing to do and it looked like a solution might get hammered out hence, the 10 day ultimatum of March 17.

Bob, you said, “Cuba does not possess nor has it used weapons of mass destruction on its own people and its neighbors.” WEll if you believe that Cuba hasn't bloodily persecuted its own kind, then let me give you a more obvious example (there are hundreds by the way) of inaction and at times collusion, by the United States while rulers decimated their population. Where was the U.S.A. when in 1965, Suharto came to power in Indonesia and East Timor, when over 2 million citizens were slaughtered? I’ll tell you where they were. They were backing the new regime. Where was there self-righteous Christian fundamentalist ideology then? Where was your outrage and indignation then? I don’t recall war being declared and fought against Indonesia at the time by the United States? The regime was allowed to flourish for 35 years by the United States until finally overthrown from within. So don’t tell me you’re in Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Forgive me, but I don’t buy it! And don’t be too surprised if the rest of the world doesn’t buy it also.

Bob, you wrote, “Cuba is not in violation of 17 UN Security Councils, the cease-fire agreement from the last war, and on and on and on.” I am not denying this, in fact, I think at last count, Iraq is in defiance of 18 resolutions over 12 years. But no imminent threat existed. What would have been the harm in pursuing all other avenues over the next 90 days? You said, “another 90 days and the substantial majority of nations would have agreed to go to war? I don't think so. France came out and said they will not support any further resolution, period.” Since when is France the “substantial majority”? At worst, the U.S.A. would have obtained a world consensus for military action by convincing most nations it had gone the extra mile in the interest of peace. Who knows, the Pope might even have acknowledged that all peaceful means to a solution had been explored. France and a few other countries like her, would have been isolated in their extreme position and would have vanished into relative obscurity. Then the real “coalition” could have proceeded with the task at hand under the auspices of the United Nations as it did in the Gulf War.

Bob, you made reference to the “pathetically weak and irrelevant UN Security Council”. Could it be the U.N. has been made irrelevant and week through actions directly attributed to the United States? Would the U.N. be stronger than their perceived “pathetically weak” position if they had the $13 billion the U.S. owes them in overdue membership dues? Could they be made more relevant in the eyes of the rest of the world if everytime a crisis arose, the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, quit circumventing their authority when it suited his own needs?

This really isn’t at all about setting a country free of oppression. This is all about world domination. It’s not about oil. It’s about firing a shot across the bow of those who have oil and letting them know who the boss is. Unfortunately, the United States is making the same mistake it makes every time it attempts to play world policeman. It is failing to understand or appreciate the culture it is dealing with. In this case it has failed to get to understand the Arab culture. Instead of being seen as liberators, the Americans will be shocked and confused when the Arab world begins calling them occupiers. I fear the real war in Iraq will not end with the fall of Baghdad. It will just be the beginning.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Mike H,

As to the Catholic brethren comment, sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say Protestant brethren. Yes, I am a Catholic, practicing and proud, former altar boy for five years, twelve years of Catholic schooling, etc.

As to your abortion comment, I share your disdain for abortion. Sadly enough, it is legal and not as clear cut as the atrocities being committed in Iraq. Whether or not it should be is a good point of debate, and to that I think we'd agree. But againly, sadly enough, it is legal. As for the speck/plank in our Iraqi brother's eye, two things: (1) Iraq poses a very real threat to our security, its neighbors, and its own people by virtue of its history and objectives in accumulating and using WMD (2) It is true we are far from perfect as a country, but does this mean that we should sit idly by and let evil triumph? I don't think so.

As for blind obedience, there is nothing heretical about dissenting with non-infallible papal statements. And yes, there are many reasons for Catholics losing faith. My point was simply that the notion or inference that dissension on any and all matters that you and others seem to imply/state is A cause for some that have left the Church. Clearly other factors are at play as well. No, I don't believe obedience is blind. Obedience in certain matters is indeed a duty and proper. But to suggest that complete (100%)obedience is a duty for all Catholics would indeed be blind and mistaken in my opinion. To assert that sound direction is always present from the chair of Peter seems to me to suggest/impy that the pope is and can never be wrong on any subject. I don't accept this. The pope is a human being, and therefore is subject to erring in judgment. Of course when he is inspired by the Holy Spirit he is always correct since all truth comes from God, not man.

Sincerely,

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

President Bush in his radio address this week said, “nothing will deter us from our mission, we will not stop until Iraq is free!” Amazing! There was no mention of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - the reason given for declaring war in the first place! Absolutely amazing!

You can hear it for yourself here: http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9B559483-B33C-4520- BFA66CD92B1CAA0A

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Ed, Ed, Ed...

You said "it is okay to ask these same countries who have been given no information to put their soldiers on the line..." - who asked the French or Syria to commit troops to the coalition?! What we did ask of them is to not shirk of their responsibilities and re-affirm what they had previously agreed to in resolution 1441, namely that Iraq was and is in material breach and that it must disarm completely and immediately. As for Canada, nobody asked them to send troops either. We asked for their support, but not in the form of troops. We cannot share all of our intelligence with third parties, even some friends or allies. And I'm not so sure that I'd call France a friend, but that's a whole other subject outside the scope of this discussion.

I did NOT accuse the Church of committing serious, grave sin. I stated a fact, namely that some of the Church leaders were in fact guilty of poor judgment by allowing the abuse to continue and by circumventing the legal system and attempting to cover up the scandal. While this is disappointing and sad, it does NOT shake my belief or conviction in my faith or the Church. Truth is that Church leaders are human too, and therefore are capable of not handling certain situations properly. I fail to see the heresy here! I am not suggesting in any remote way that Jesus has sinned. We agree on something - this is impossible by definition. And yes, I am a proud and practicing Catholic. And while I don't agree with your position (or that of the pope), I am not calling into question your faithfulness to the Church or how good of a Catholic you are. And I would appreciate the same courtesy and respect from you.

Back to your 90 day argument, how is 12 years immediate? From the time that Bush went before the UN back on Sept. 12th of last year, more than 180 days passed my friend - you got your 90 days, twice! And of course, you had 12 years too. "Looked like a solution might get hammered out" - very naive of you not to mention flat out false.

Why are we in Iraq? To disarm Saddam of WMD and to effect a regime change. In turn, this will translate into liberty for innocent Iraqis that have too long suffered at the hands of this pathetic regime. I full well realize that there are episodes in the past where the US can and should have acted. But that's another subject for another day. Truth is the US cannot impose its will on all countries and interfere in every country where evil is present. But we are more than justified in this instance.

As to the UN, fact is that the UN would be stronger if it had the courage to back up its own resolutions, namely resolution 1441 which passed 15-0 and called for serious consequences! The UN would be stronger if it did not stand by and watch the genocide in Rwanda to occur back in 94. It would be stronger if it had done something with regard to Kosovo.

World domination? You must be kidding. We seek no land, no additional authority. We seek a safer world for our people and that of the rest of the world. As for liberators vs. occupiers, I have no doubt that we will be called many things. But in the end, our actions will speak for themselves. We will "occupy" Iraq only so long as it is necessary to ensure peace and stability. And our "occupational" will involve a multinational force. If we were truly imperialists, we would not bring in other countries to keep the peace and nor would we be working with Iraqi citizens (inside and outside of Iraq) to help them form their own government.

God bless.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Ed - are you serious?!? I find your selective reference of statements and broad and innacurate conclusions to be amusing. Yes, Bush did in fact say that we will not stop till Iraq is free. What is wrong with that? That statement is intended to reinforce the notion that we will not stop until our objectives are achieved. The Iraqi people need this assurance, that we will in fact effect a regime change so that they will have their liberty. President Bush has repeatedly made our objectives crystal clear: (1) Disarmament of WMD and (2) Regime change. Successful attainmnet of these two objectives will translate into a liberated people and the end of oppression, a glorious thing I might add.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Well, thanks for your words of clarification Bob. I am now feeling much better in the knowledge that I can sleep easy tonight knowing the United States of America has things under control globally. Please don’t take any of my comments personally, they were advanced in the interest of our debate. It is pretty clear to me that we have had ample time and space here to elucidate our respective positions, and since I don’t have anything new to add to my entrenched position at this point, I won’t continue this dialogue for the time being. Let’s reserve the right to express our own opinions while respecting each other’s point of view.

God bless.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Ed - sounds good! And by the way, not only is a good, honest difference in opinion healthy, some good can come of it as well. You and others have motivated me to study up on temporal assent. I will report back my conclusions and perhaps seek out your and others' input where needed.

As for the US having things under control globally, I'm not so sure I'd go that far. But we certainly have things under control in Iraq. And my hope and prayer is that Palestine is next. Just think of the possibilities for world peace if these two hurdles could be met in the next two years or so... Exciting I dare say.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Sorry Bob, forgive me for starting up again but, it seems we were posting at the same time and I didn’t see your last post regarding my post about President Bush’s radio address. Since some of your recent comments have raised my ire slightly I feel I now have to respond.

Bob, you said, “I find your selective reference of statements and broad and inaccurate conclusions to be amusing.”, in reference to my comments about President Bush’s radio address today. Please be specific. What was selective or broad or inaccurate in anything that I said, that amused you?

You said, “Yes, Bush did in fact say that we will not stop till Iraq is free. What is wrong with that?” What is wrong with it? That isn’t why the U.S.A. approached the United Nations for support invade Iraq. That’s what’s wrong with it! Perhaps it might help you to re- read Resolution 1441. It may surprise you to find out that “freedom for the people in Iraq” as a stated goal of armed incursion is not mentioned. However, “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” is mentioned. That was the reason the world was challenging Sadaam Hussein. It is also the reason Mr. Bush gave to justify the independent action he, and U.K. Prime Minister Blair took on their own in declaring war on Iraq.

Bob, you said, “President Bush has repeatedly made our objectives crystal clear: (1) Disarmament of WMD and (2) Regime change.” Is that so? Well you better tell Mr. Bush then, because he forgot to mention Number 1 in his radio address to the nation today; and his message isn’t very consistent, because only a few short months ago, Mr. Bush failed to mention Number 2 in conjunction with alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people when orchestrating Resolution 1441 for the United Nations. Have you listened to his address today? Don’t you find it peculiar that your stated Number 1 goal for invasion of Iraq was overlooked by him. Isn’t it odd that the Number 1 reason for going to war would be forgotten or overlooked by him? Did I miss something when he said, “our mission is to free the people of Iraq”. Has that not changed substantially from Resolution 1441 which stated the mission was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? It seems that you’ve been repeating the misinformation about the original stated goal so often that you now believe it yourself.

The people of Iraq don’t need American “assurance” of anything. They have a long and storied history (the Garden of Eden was located there) and any interference by America in internal affairs, I can assure you, is viewed as occupation. You only need to watch a non- American news broadcast to realise this.

PS. Bob, save yourself some time and don't bother looking up the Church's view on temporal assent, we've given it to you here.(hehehe)

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Okay Ed, here we go again...

What amused me? What amused me is how Bush's statement re: liberating the people can be miscontrued to suggest we are not focused on eliminiated WMD and effecting a regime change. I do not see how or why these two are mutually exclusive!

The freeing of the people of Iraq is not our primary objective - agreed. It is a direct consequence though. And by the way, we did not act independently - approximately 50 nations make up the coalition, and we are still technically at war since Iraq is in violation of the cease fire from the first gulf war.

The people of Iraq in fact do need our assurance. The have lived in fear of this ruthless dictator and are fearful that Saddam might somehow remain in power. Internal affairs? Iraq's amassing of WMD is anything but internal. Iraq's history of using WMD on its neighbors, its history of unprovoked attacks on its neighbors and its conspiring with the likes of terrorist groups is anything but internal Ed. As for non-American broadcasts, are you suggesting that the Arab broadcasts are objective?! Sounds to me like you've been watching too much of the Clinton News Network (CNN) - try Fox news if you want the truth.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, earlier you said, “who asked the French or Syria to commit troops to the coalition?...As for Canada, nobody asked them to send troops either.” Is that so? Had the United Nations been forced to carry out its mandate in Resolution 1441 I can assure nations from around the world would have been asked to supply troops in bringing Sadaam under compliance. Do you not realise there are Austrailian troops in Iraq as we speak? Who asked them? Similarly in Afghanistan, while the U.S. supplied the major portion of troop strength, Canada participated. Canada lost four soldiers alone to a "friendly-fire" incident.

Bob you said, “We asked for their support, but not in the form of troops. We cannot share all of our intelligence with third parties, even some friends or allies.” No - but you can ask them to die for it though, can't you? And what is it with “we”. At this juncture (when Iraq was found to be in non-compliance) the problem was the United Nations to settle, not the Americans'.

Bob, you said, “I did NOT accuse the Church of committing serious, grave sin.” And yet in an earlier statement you wrote, “the Church is not exactly 'pure' when it comes to morality.” What the Hell does this mean if not the Church has sinned in the past? You do realise of course, that the Church is responsible for the teaching of morals to the faithful? What did you mean by what you’ve said, if not that the Church is unpure? You did go on to mention “Church officials” when discussing the “child molestation” scandal but your slur clearly indicated implication of wrong-doing by the Church in using the adjective “Church” when describing the officials whom by your insinuation, allegedly participated in some sort of collusion with paedophiles.

Tell me Bob, in this quest to rid the world of tyranny, who is next? There are several Arab countries at present who suppress their population (assuming this is our newfound criteria). Will Iran be next? Or Syria? What will the criteria be for future invasions? Will it change as easily as the criteria for invading Iraq did? President Bush has stated that 61 countries around the world have harboured terrorists. Two down, 59 to go! By the way, have you asked Afghans lately how they are enjoying their new-found freedom/democracy?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, sorry missed you last post again. You said, “I do not see how or why these two are mutually exclusive!” The are mutually exclusive because they were not included simultaneously together at the outset. They get introduced/interchanged depending on which way the political winds are blowing for Mr. Bush and are directly dependent on the amount of hard evidence that is available to anyone who questions American motives.

Bob, you said, “ approximately 50 nations make up the coalition,” Yes, I agree, but what you forgot to mention is that 47 of them owe their livelihood to the United States of America. You said, “The people of Iraq in fact do need our assurance.” Well, maybe they need it but America will soon find out if they want it.

Bob, you said, “ Iraq's amassing of WMD is anything but internal. Iraq's history of using WMD on its neighbors, its history of unprovoked attacks on its neighbors and its conspiring with the likes of terrorist groups is anything but internal Ed.” Why has the United States waited till now to do something about it? What happened in the eighties when the U.S. (Rumsfeld and his cronies) were courting Iraq to sell them chemical and germ warfare?

Bob, you wrote, “As for non-American broadcasts, are you suggesting that the Arab broadcasts are objective?! Sounds to me like you've been watching too much of the Clinton News Network (CNN) - try Fox news if you want the truth.” Sorry I don’t get Fox news, but I do get the BBC, and the CBC and have had the opportunity lately to view the opinions of some European networks and I can tell you, their broadcasts appear to more understandably unbiased then any American broadcasts I have witnessed.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Ed - this will likely be my last reply to you. If you need or want the final word, go right ahead... But when I ignore your next reply I want you to know why. You are well intended but in my opinion, simply misguided when it comes to international and geopolitical matters. And you confuse and twist this with Roman Catholic theology.

"had the UN been forced to carry out its mandate in Resolution 1441" - or put differently, had the UN had the fortitude, courage and integrity to deliver on its word. As for supplying troops, no nation has ever been coerced to supply troops - the coalition of the willing/courageous accepts whatever type of support contributing nations are comfortable with providing. And yes, I am very well aware that Australia has troops - I watch the coverage rather intently and am EXTREMELY informed here actually. As for Afghanistan, yes, Canada participated. So what. As if their contribution was anything more than symbolic? And it was voluntary oh by the way, and back when they showed sense...

As for Iraqi's non-compliance, yes, the problem was for the UN to deal with. But since the likes of France, Russia and China had alterior motives, the US, British and Spain had to stand tall and make good on what the UN had previously committed/pledged.

As for the Church not being pure, I mispoke. Yes, I meant Church leaders - a dangling modifier. Relax. As for morality, yes, the Church should be looked to for guidance in this matter, but this does not mean that the Church dictates this for her people. There is a fine line here - don't you remember the 'informed conscience' axiom in religion class? I do... As for Church leaders and the unfortunate scandal, I NEVER stated or even implied any conclusion with the pedophiles. What I did say is that a number of Church leaders demonstrated poor judgment as to how they handled these matters, and that their actions were immoral and illegal. No suggestion of collusion...

World tyranny - who said anything about that? I'd like to believe that you and I share one thing in common - we'd like to see peace wherever and whenever possible. I believe we are making progress to this end. Suppression of citizens in and of itself does not constitute grounds for a US-led invasion. Every situation is independent, and while it is possible that we may need to invade Syria, Iran or North Korea at some point in the next five years, I hope and pray that this can be averted. I'd be happy to take this up with you further offline. As for the Afghans, nobody has said that they are a model of democracy - this does not happen overnight. But there can be no dispute that the quality of life for its people is immeasurably better than prior to our ousting and defeat of the Taliban.

Mutual exclusivity - you're missing the point. What's wrong with the fact that in our quest to effect a regime change and rid Iraq of WMD that we are intent on liberating the Iraqi people in the process.

As for the 47 of the 50 nations, actually, many more nations owe their livelihood to the US. Take Germany and France for example - they owe us their livelihood yet they were on the 'dark side'...

Why has the US waited so long to do something about it? Good question. Two reasons - (1) we attempted to go the diplomatic peaceful route - isn't this what you wanted???!!!??? (2) Clinton had no courage or leadership to deal with the situation and was too busy with Monica L... As for the 80's, our policy toward Iraq was to effect a stalemate (which was the final outcome) between Iraq and Iran so that the balance of power in the region would remain in check, which in turn translates into more peace - is this not a good thing??? And by the way, we did not sell Iraq chem and germ warfare - that is a farce. You have us confused with France my friend. And as for the BBC, it is a joke - extremely liberal, biased and inaccurate. Now it all makes sense if that is your source...

In conclusion, I diagree with the pope's position. I support this president, our troops, and our quest to rid Iraq of chemical weapons, effect a regime change and in turn liberate the Iraqi people and put an end to the senseless killing, torture and oppression. In my view, this is the moral high ground!

If you want to banter further, you'll have to e-mail me directly Ed.

God bless.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, thank you for allowing me the hammer in this debate. You are quite correct when you say I am not very skilled in international or geopolitical affairs, I tend to believe in those who have much more expertise in these matters, much more information at their disposal and much more familiarity with what God wants in our lives, such as the Pope. It is very interesting that you have chosen to use the word “geopolitical” to describe the topic of discussion here. If you look the word up you will find that one definition of the word geopolitical is: A Nazi doctrine holding that the geographic, economic, and political needs of Germany justified its invasion and seizure of other lands. (Dictionary.com) Could your use of the word “geopolitical” been a Freudian slip on your part?

Bob, you wrote “you confuse and twist this with Roman Catholic theology”. Please show me where I have erred in anything I have used from Church teaching and I will change my ways. I have quoted you several concrete examples from Church teaching to support my statements and you have given me opinions of what you think. You wrote, “or put differently, had the UN had the fortitude, courage and integrity to deliver on its word.” You might better aptly have written, had the United Nations authority not been usurped by the United States, it might better have been able to get something accomplished and avoided this war and the needless loss of life. But we'll never know, will we?

Bob, you wrote that you are “EXTREMELY informed”. Just yesterday while in debate with you, I was in a similar discussion with a friend overseas and he made the comment, “Do the Americans really know how much they are despised around world. I really don’t think they get the picture.” I really am not telling you this out of some sort of malice but rather, to let you know that Americans have absolutely no idea how the rest of the world lives or thinks. This isn’t my opinion alone, or the opinion of a few, I have heard this from citizens in the U.K., the Netherlands, Africa, and from citizens of Arab nations time and time again. While I may be naive in “geopolitical” matters, I have learned that blood runs thicker than water and until America learns that borders have no meaning to people of the same race, in most instances, they will continue to meet hardship around the world when attempting to influence individual nations with their views.

Bob, you wrote “As for Afghanistan, yes, Canada participated. So what. As if their contribution was anything more than symbolic? And it was voluntary oh by the way, and back when they showed sense...” On behalf of Canada I appreciate you thanking us for our participation in Afghanistan. Since I know one of the families who lost a son in Afghanistan, I shall pass on your heartfelt condolences, but tactfully omit the part about their son’s participation being “symbolic”. It is this sort of American arrogance that makes one want to vomit from disgust.

Bob, I appreciate your admitting you misspoke about the Church. As for asking if I remember my catechism concerning “informed conscience” I can tell you that I most certainly do. However, it would seem that you may have forgotten the last few words of CCC 1783 so I shall repeat them for you here: “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences AND TEMPTED BY SIN TO PREFER THEIR OWN JUDGMENT AND TO REJECT AUTHORITATIVE TEACHINGS.”

Bob, you wrote “As for Church leaders and the unfortunate scandal, I NEVER stated or even implied any conclusion with the pedophiles.” Bob, let me quote EXACTLY what you did say, “but I really struggle with the morality of Church leaders looking the other way when various priests were sexually abusing children. I submit to you that the actions of various Church leaders were irresponsible and immoral, not to mention illegal.” Do I have to recite the definition of the work "collusion" here for you? Or is this another instance where you innocently misspoke? In the very next few lines you wrote, “I trust that their intentions were genuine and good, but simply lacked proper judgment.” So they were “immoral”, “looked the other way”, and committed “illegal” acts, but were “genuine and good” and “lacked judgement”. You can’t have it both ways Bob. Which is it? Were they in collusion or were they stupid? Your statements are about as consistent as American foreign policy which you claim to be so adeptly informed of.

Bob, I join you in prayer that future world concerns may be settled peacefully. War spawns evil and is contrary to God’s law that is written on the heart of every man.

Bob, you wrote, “But there can be no dispute that the quality of life for its people is immeasurably better than prior to our ousting and defeat of the Taliban.” But you conveniently neglected to mention who supported the Taliban in their climb to power in the first place. You wrote, “What's wrong with the fact that in our quest to effect a regime change and rid Iraq of WMD that we are intent on liberating the Iraqi people in the process.” Nothing is wrong with this. What is wrong is purporting to now claim America’s intentions in invading Iraq all along were to free an oppressed people (as President Bush stated on Saturday) when in actual fact, the formally-stated justification was to rid Iraq of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Since no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, the Americans have gone into damage-control mode and are putting a spin on recent developments by pounding their chests and claiming their intentions all along were to be “liberators” of an oppressed people in Iraq. How humanitarian and compassionate of them! When all along, the evidence for carrying out this act of war in the first place - WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, escapes them and is quickly going up in the smoke dropped by 1000 bombs per day! This is most deceitful and dishonest.

Bob you wrote, “Take Germany and France for example - they owe us their livelihood yet they were on the 'dark side'...” If you’re referring here to the single-handed liberation of the free world in World War II by the United States, I will let your statement stand on its own arrogant merit and all who read your comments can judge for themselves. For without proof of what you say, that is all they can go by.

Bob you wrote, “As for the 80's, our policy toward Iraq was to effect a stalemate (which was the final outcome) between Iraq and Iran so that the balance of power in the region would remain in check, which in turn translates into more peace - is this not a good thing???" (Again, no proof to substantiate your claim!) This is always part of America’s problem. They never decide foreign policy based on what is right. It is always determined based on what is best for the United States and then any and all means and methods are employed to go about obtaining that objective. Unfortunately, people, regions, nations and continents are trampled under foot in the process. Then America sits back in amazement and wonders, “What is everybody all upset about!” (Note I used an exclamation point and not a question mark here - for they are always much too busy pounding each other on the back with congratulations to bother to take the time to get real answers to serious problems.)

Bob you wrote, “And by the way, we did not sell Iraq chem and germ warfare - that is a farce. You have us confused with France my friend.” Please! Enough of your opinions! Will you please start supplying me with hard facts and concrete evidence to refute my claims that I have supported time and time again. While I realize you are a self-acclaimed expert on “geopolitical” matters do you claim to know more than Michael Dobbs, Investigative Journalist, who writes for the Washington Post and who in his article on Dec. 30, 2002 wrote the following:

“Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I guess Mr. Dobbs must be as naive as I am concerning the world “geopolitical” stage or is he one of those dastardly “liberals”? I have disclosed my source to you about what I have said concerning Rumsfeld, can you please dispute my argument intelligently with your evidence or source to the contrary? If not, please spare me your opinion. You can read the article in its entirety in the Washington Post here at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

Bob, you wrote, “as for the BBC, it is a joke - extremely liberal, biased and inaccurate.” I submit to you, the BBC is the lesser of two evils (American networks) when attempting to decipher the truth and all of the facts concerning American Imperialism.

Bob, it may shock you to find out that I am politically conservative in my thinking. I don’t know if you’ve been following the forum for any length of time but those who have, will tell you that I have a fond place in my heart for America and her values. I support George Bush in everything he has done to date save for his rush to judgement and to action, in the war with Iraq. I SUPPORT NOT ONLY THE AMERICAN TROOPS BUT ALL COALITION TROOPS IN THE JOB THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN. I too, reserve the right to make my own final decision in everything I consider, as that is my “God”-given right. However, I am cognisant of the tools Our Lord has given me and aware of the rules that govern me as a member in the Body of Christ, when deciphering what is good in the world and what is evil - not the least of which is the Holy Father and our mother, the Church.

I have enjoyed this debate immensely. I mean no personal attack on you in anything I have written. I am as equally committed to seeking justice and peace as you are. Let us pray for a quick end to this conflict and that all parties return home safely to their loved ones.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob

When you said:

'As for the 47 of the 50 nations, actually, many more nations owe their livelihood to the US. Take Germany and France for example - they owe us their livelihood yet they were on the 'dark side'... '

What did you mean by this statement? Please clarify this for me. At first glance I thought you were referring to World War 2 but then thought, no I'm misunderstanding something here. Everyone knows that the US didn't enter this war until the war was three years old and Pearl Harbour was bombed. I would be very grateful if you could clear up what is surely I misunderstanding on my part. Many British people would be very offended at that comment. It's still a bit of a sore point in the UK that it took the US so long to come to our aid. I just can't think of any other way that France or Germany would, in your opinion, owe the US their livelihood. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me.

Queen of peace, pray for us.

Sara

-- Sara (sara@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Thank you Bob and Ed for your edifying discussion here. I have been following the conversation with much interest. I do not have much to add to it, but I would like to mention that I am very much in line with Ed's thoughts on the matter. Though I would like to point out something to you Ed. I'm sure you are familiar that there is a very sharp contrast with our present leadership and our former leadership (i.e. The Clinton Administration) and a lot of the inconsistancies that are found in American Foreign policy are due to the fact that there has been a drastic change in leadership priorities and integrities. It is an extreme relieve to have a president who is against abortion and is actually doing something about it (not a lot, but something nevertheless).

I will be the first to admit, sometimes I am very much ashamed at my country and beg God for mercy on us. I also do realize that most of the world is very animostic towards us as well. I believe I am right in saying the most Americans recongize this as well, but sadly are reacting with the "they can all go to h***" mentality.

Thanks again.

-- Matthew (Lyric_Wanderer@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Matthew, you seem wise beyond your years. You ask probing questions about the world around you and your faith. The future of your nation is in good hands if the young people of America have the sincerity and humility that you exhibit. Your nation is a great one, I know, because I have lived and worked with Americans daily. I only wish Americans could display the virtues that made their country great when dealing with the rest of the world. It would set many minds at ease if she could. God bless

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 06, 2003.

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Ed, you're killing me... Against my better judgment, I find myself compelled to answer your last post.

Geopolitics, defined by Merriam Webster.com - "a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on the politics and especially the foreign policy of a state." No Nazi reference here my friend.

Concrete examples from Church teaching - look for a post from me shortly with as much, okay?

Yes, I realize that many Europeans and others despise Americans. I also realize many are very fond of us, so much so that they imitate us in many ways. I have been blessed to have traveled to various countries and continents. I also realize that many are envious of our freedom and our lifestyle, and consequently hate us in return. I also realize that we have erred in policies in the past and that has in turn done damage - no, I am not naive to think we are pure or perfect. But I also realize that the US has done and continues to do a great deal of good all over the world.

As for the Candian participation in Afghanistan, you have twisted what I said here. Of course I do not regard the loss of any life as symbolic. My comment spoke to the number of Canadian troops as compared to that of US troops - symbolic in that sense. This is a fact and has no suggestion or inference of Amercian arrogance - you're a little hard on us Americans, don't you think? Must be nice to be Canadian - don't have to spend much on defense by virtue of the fact that you border the US, eh? (threw that 'eh' in there just for you). By the way, I like the Canadian people and have a number of very good friends who are Canadian. And yes, I am saddened that a family you know lost a son in the war. As saddened as I am for all other families, be it Canadian, American, or otherwise.

"...tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings" - easy there Ed. Your emphasis of this phrase by putting it in CAPS is a bit extreme. Surely you're not standing in judgment and condemning me, now are you?

Collusion - you have once again misunderstood me here. No inconsistency with what I said. Let me restate it again for you. I said that their (church leaders in question) INTENTIONS were good, but their actions were immoral and illegal. I stand by that. Their looking the other way does not constitute collusion but rather poor judgment as to the proper way in which to deal with the crime and sin.

We did not support the Taliban. We did support factions within Afghanistan to repel the invading force of the former Soviet Union.

As for our being a liberating force, you're missing the point here. You are hearing a lot about that now since it is necessary to reiterate this point. The world and the Iraqi people need assurance that we have no imperialistic/occupational motives, but rather we seek to liberate them. As for WMD, relax, we need to win the war first. We've only been at it for 18 days now. No reasonable person could or should expect that we would have found the WMD yet.

As for my Germany and France comment, you have miscontrued what I said here too. Look for my reply to Sara for a clarification. And no, we did not single-handedly liberate the free world but we sure as heck made the pivotal difference in winning the war. No arrogance, simply fact.

As for Rumsfeld, the 80's, your Washington Post reference, etc. - I could take the time to drum up quotes to counter this but so could you. Let me share my source, principally former Secretary of Defense (at the time) Alexander Hague on numerous interviews I have intently watched and listened to. Most of my "sources" on these matters are from countless experts that I listen to very carefully on news interviews. If it is really important to you for me to dig specific quotes or articles, I will try to accomodate you. Surely you don't believe everything that is in writing though, especially much of what is spewed in the liberal Washington Post. I am not familiar with Michael Dobbs, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were in fact a "dastardly liberal" to steal your phrase.

No, I have not been on this forum but for a couple of weeks...

I share your prayer for a quick end to the conflict and that all parties do in fact return home safely to their loved ones sooner than later.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Sara,

The US bailed out France in WW I and II, Vietnam and the Cold War. In WW I, 26,255 Americans died on French soil, and in WW II the figure is 30,426. If it weren't for the U.S., the Eiffel tower would be the Hitler tower and they would be speaking German!

As for the Germans, it seems to me that the US played a key role, in conjunction with our allies, in defeating the Hitler regime. It seems to me that the US basically rebuilt the German economy. It seems to me that if the US, specifically Ronald Reagan, had not stood up to the former Soviet Union (peace through strength), Germany would not enjoy the freedoms they currently have. How many thousands of troops have we had in Germany and for how many years has it been now? They owe us their peace, freedom and economic infrastructure. Who kept them safe during the Cold War?

You could very well make a good argument and even a fair criticism that the US should have entered WW II sooner. And I would agree with you. And I could make the argument and criticism that Britian went along with France and Russia, the chief appeasers to Hitler in the 30's, and therefore bear some of the burden and responsibility for allowing the rise of the Third Reich to occur. And hopefully you would agree with me here. Had France, Russia and Britian marched into Germany back in 1933, there would have been no World War II and no holocaust.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Prime Minister Tony Blair for his courage and stance he has taken on the war with Iraq. It seems to me that both the UK and the US have learned from the past, namely that evil has a way of killing people, and that the only way evil can be stopped (in certain instances) is for just and courageous people (leaders/nations) to confront it.

Such is the case with the war in Iraq.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Matthew,

I respect your opinion despite the fact that I am at odds with it. I would encourage you not to be ashamed of our great country, but rather, to be immensely proud. Yes, it is true that we are not perfect. Yes, we have made and will continue to err in judgment and policy. But consider this for a minute. Never in the history of the world has there been a nation with so much power who has sought to do so much good. For that and many other reasons, I am immensely proud to be an American.

Thanks you for initiating the discussion and dialogue, and again, hats off to you for trying to become more informed and seeking out the truth...

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

I assure you Bob, I am immensely proud of my country... after I wrote the post I realize I had forgotten to mention that. To clarify myself: I am very proud of my country, I love her, and respect her with all my might, I am willing to die for her, but all this having been said there are many things that I am also ashamed of in my country (e.g. the legalization of abortion, scandals in our leaders, etc.). I sincerely believe that we have the finest country in the world and I pray that she may have a bright and honorable future in peace and prosperity.

I am very sorry I did not make this clear in my previous post...

-- Matthew (Lyric_Wanderer@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Bob, your latest comments are appreciated. Let me be one of the first to welcome you and Matthew to the forum. I think we have now had sufficient time and space to expound on our positions (I know I have had). Let’s call it a truce for today and join in prayer for a quick and fair resolution of the conflict.

I will close with two snippets from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and an Associated Press news release dated today, April 6 - from the Vatican and a brief closing statement:

“We join with Pope John Paul in the conviction that war is not "inevitable" and that "war is always a defeat for humanity." This is not a matter of ends, but means. Our bishops' conference continues to question the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11. With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.”

STATEMENT ON IRAQ Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops February 26, 2003 “VATICAN CITY April 6, 2003 —— Associated Press Pope John Paul II pleaded Sunday for a swift end to the conflict in Iraq, expressing special concern for civilians affected by the fighting. The pontiff, who has strongly opposed the military action, told followers gathered for his weekly address in St. Peter's Square that working toward peace is "a permanent obligation." "The reality of these days demonstrates this in a dramatic way," he said. "In particular, my thought goes to Iraq and to all those involved in the war that rages there. I think in a special way about the defenseless civilian population that in various cities is undergoing a hard test," he told the crowd. "May God want this conflict to finish soon to make space for a new era of forgiveness, love and peace," John Paul said. In the months before the Iraq war, the pope lobbied for a negotiated solution, meeting with key players and sending envoys to others. He said there was no legal or moral justification for the U.S. military action, and has worried about its effect on relations between Christians and Muslims.”

I will close by saying this, as a Catholic, it is my strong and considered opinion that when the Vicar of Christ sitting in the Chair of Peter, in union with the Bishops around the world declare a preemptive war with Iraq has “no legal or moral justification” then I can deduce from that, that such a move would indeed be immoral. It is clear to me that due to the manner in which it came about, the war in Iraq is immoral.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Interesting quotes from authoritative Church leaders and literature:

1. "People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms" to this case (Iraq war) - US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Statement Nov 13, 2002.

2. "While we have warned of the potential moral dangers of embarking on this war, we have also been clear that there are no easy answers. War has serious consequences, 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)." USCCB Stmt, 3/19/03

3. "the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good." Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's doctrinal note "On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life".

4. "While a decision to use force against Iraq would be regrettable, it might well prove to be necessary..." Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, 2/3/03

5. "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the state." Catechism 2265

6. "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the agressor unable to inflict harm." Catechism 2266

7. "...governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self- defense, once all peace efforts have failed." Cathechism 2308

8. "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Cathechism 2309

Temporal assent? I don't think so. It does not apply here. Supporting the war in Iraq is dissent from non-infallible papal statements.

God bless.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Matthew - thanks for the clarification. And I hear you. But I'd look at it this way. Anytime humans are involved, mistakes will happen. This is true with our government's leaders as well as the Catholic Church's leaders (reference the recent scandal). This is sad and unfortunate, and I suppose a certain sense of embarrasment/shame is understandable. Regrettably, our government and Church leaders will sometimes let us down and embarrass us. But like you, I am proud to be American and Roman Catholic.

Ed - truce accepted! for now...

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Yet it still remains that the Catholic Church stood for keeping a tyrant in power, and against the liberation of the people of Iraq.

A few points before I go on:

1. I am a practicing Catholic.

2. I am an American.

3. I am seriously wondering why I am Catholic.

Why am I part of the Church, who is saying that an unchecked cycle of tyranny is better than the war that will break it?

I am not a pacifist. I believe there are times for war. I reject the call for "peace" at any price, as that is an invitation to slavery and injustice.

If the burden for a just war is met with the vote of the Security Council alone, then the Holy Father is rejecting the idea of sovergnty within solitary nations. Or any group of nations that is not the UN.

Is the UN the only government to be recognized as being able to wage a just war? This rings of annointment of the UN as the world govenment, another idea I reject.

I've not gone to Mass since the Pope has stood against the USA and on the side of those in the UN that would keep Saddam Hussein in power. Spare me your "it's all about the oil" cries, for the same could be said for countries that wished for Saddam to remain, as they were benefiting from sanctions that enriched that tyrant while starving his people. The real "blood for oil" was the 12 years of sanctions.

The call for inaction was the cry FOR tyranny. How can I go to Mass and proudly stand as a Catholic with this stance?

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 20, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Frank... is this what they mean by an army of one?

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

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Army of one?

LOL, actually, I am a Regular Army soldier.

So, are you saying I should leave the Catholic Church?

If the attitude is one that in order to support the war in Iraq I cannot be a good and proper Catholic, I am sorry.

I must side with right. I've been wrestling with this for months; it may well be that in order to take a stand against the evil of tyranny I have to give up my stand in the Church.

But thanks for your insight and reasoned response.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 20, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Well here's what I'm getting at. You said this:

"I've not gone to Mass since the Pope has stood against the USA and on the side of those in the UN that would keep Saddam Hussein in power."

It sounded to me like you were commencing with a sort of hunger strike on the spiritual level... in so far as you are willing to cut yourself off from receiving the body of Christ needed for your spiritual sustainance.

That is why people go to Mass, you know. Or at least, that should be the reason.

In most hunger strikes, the rest of the world goes on about it's business, and if the striker is serious about what he's doing, he's the one that ends up losing.

So I couldn't help but think of an army of one.

Get your rear back into that Church every Sunday and receive your sustainance... your eternal wellbeing is far more important than, and completely independent of, all these other passing considerations. Don't go awol on your Faith.

The war over your own personal soul has far more gravity, strategy and intrigue than human battlefield has ever had.

You just aren't a witness to it.

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


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

The Pope made it quite clear that he was not in favor of "keeping Hussein in power". On the contrary, he urged that non-violent means be pursued in an effort to accomplish that very goal.

I wonder if you would boycott your doctor, if he expressed similar opinions??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 20, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

I know very well why I go to Mass, and what it means.

Yet it's...hypocritical to me (on my end, btw, not the Church's).

When a fundamental, deep conviction comes in conflict with the viewpoint of the Church it's a bit more than a hunger strike.

I cannot come to grips with the idea that I can desire and know to be correct one set of events and yet be Catholic, which means I must change those views and act in a completely opposite way [i]which I cannot find to be wrong.[/i]

Neither can I divorce them - the idea that I can go to Mass and blithely stand, sit, and kneel in some rote fashion, merrily believing one way while the Church does another, and never paying attention to the difference is abhorrant to me.

The sticking point is that if the UN had blessed off on the liberation of Iraq, so would the Holy See, according to the "just war" articles I read. The war is unjust because France held out a veto threat? But would have met the burdens if they had of consented?

At what point do the words of the Holy Father stop being the words of the Church (that is to say, the marching orders for us) and simply "guidelines?" I was unaware of such things...or have I given the Pope more authority than is his place?

I realize all this may sound glib, but I certainly don't think so.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 20, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

"I wonder if you would boycott your doctor, if he expressed similar opinions??"

Want a parallel to how serious I take this?

This is akin to a doctor saying he was going to sterlize me as he felt my having more children was bad.

Would I boycott him? You bet I would.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 20, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

No, the question here is - would you boycott medical care if your doctor expressed a political view you disagreed with? I wondered, since you seem ready to boycott spiritual care for the same reason.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Actually, I would.

The analogy breaks down, however, as there is more than one doctor to go to, but only one Holy and Apostolic Church.

It's more than a political viewpoint for me. It's one of moral imperative.

The ending of suffering is central to my beliefs, including ending it by removing, by force, those that retain and engineer systems that subjugate large groups of people.

It comes to this: In my heart, I believe the liberation of Iraq was a just war.

The Pontiff's rejection of this was based not in pacifism (as I read it), but rather in the stance that only through overt UN backing could it be just.

I tend to believe that the ending of suffering on the scale of Saddam's Iraq transcended international politics, and when a clear goal of regime removal and a plan to institute a democratic form of government is in place that the only just thing to do is to implement it.

This puts me in the mental and moral knots of saying the Church is wrong.

The cognative dissonance caused by this is overwhelming.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), April 21, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

o.k. Frank, let's let that be as it is.

But don't let that affect your presence at the way of salvation, though... at the Eucharist.

Please; I'm just asking for your benefit, that's all. There's nothing in it for me. I just ask that you don't allow it to come between you and that life-giving hidden God on that altar.

Something like this happened to me before... don't fall for that temptation. Receive Christ in the Eucharist; understanding comes sometimes, other times we have to suffer the not-knowing.

At all times, we must receive the Eucharist. Please take my advice; it's sincere.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 21, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Emerald, your allusion to the debate on the war being "just like" the debate of the traditionalists re: extra ecclesiam nulla salus issues is simply wrong.

The Feenyites took an old principle, twisted it and re-applied it incorrectly.

The Bush Administration took the classic Catholic Just War doctrine (as is taught in West Point and the other academies), and applied the classic definitions and restrictions. The key elements to the dispute is: who has final authority and who has the crucial information as to the degree of danger. CCC 2310 clearly states that the State has the authority to wage war to protect the common good. And it also states that the decision as to the danger is also the State's to make, not clerics who DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO PERTINENT INFORMATION.

How therefore you can apply Catholic doctrine in a way that is anti- Catholic is beyond me. We've broke no new ground here.

I have pointed out elsewhere that The United States declaration of war on Nazi Germany in 1941 was also a "pre-emptive" war insofar as the Germans had not done ANYTHING that directly harmed the American mainland nor would they have been in a position to threaten us for another couple years. Yet we went to war with Nazi Germany!

Ah, but it was justified at the time because Germany was a partner with an axis of evil - so that if one attacked us (Japan) all attacked us. There is a clear parallel between this form of collective antagonism and responsibility from the 1940's and the antagonism we face today from Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

But NO ONE who has argued against war cites history. AND NO ONE cites Catholic theology and Just war or the Catechism. All merely restrict their arguments to questions of probability and warn of "future" "Possible consequences".... yet such arguments can not be considered on par with either/or theological and doctrinal ones of the Feenyites.

Gulf War 2 hinged on questions of fact - prudential decisions as to how to apply a principle which the US has respected!

In the case in Iraq we have a difference of opinion on a prudential matter.

In the case of the authentic Magisterial position explaining the classic latin phrase above we have the Feenites saying "ecclesia" means only the visible Church, with people walking in lockstep with the Pope. But if that's the definition of the "the Church" then plenty of saints are automatically excluded because they lived in times when there was no Pope (St Joseph) or there were many anti- Popes and schism... What are we to say about the martyrs and holy innocents??

In short the the traditionalist "debate" is a matter of them not understanding the doctrine they supposedly uphold.

In the matter of war with Iraq it's a matter of the State following the Catholic ethical principles - in principle, while the Pontif and others dispute on two points as to their application - all of which, because this is a moral question, rests on questions of FACT. If you don't have the FACTS, THEN YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

CCC 2309 and 2310 are clear as to who is responsible for the common good, and who has the authority to declare war. It's also clear that this authority is limited and that within warfare ethics must still be followed (as they HAVE BEEN).

As in the case of capital punishment, the Pope as a pastor may ask that a convict be pardoned...but if the state determines that he is such a threat as to warrant execution, that would still be moral.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 21, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

I have posted some of this in another thread also.

It is quite simple. He is trying to follow God's words to forgive our enemies and to love them, and I guess those words seem ridiculous to even some catholics. One day we will have to answer why we went against the word of God when it is clearly and simply stated that even the most foolish person could understand? Also, as to why this is more than just a WMD disarmament as stated at first for the cause of war and now "freedom" for the Iraquis who have more freedom than those in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China etc, and considering the fact that those mentioned countries are our allies and we would never try to go to war with them because we know that they posses WMD or we need their support for certain things, and we could not make a clean war if we try to "free" them, if the christian president's "current" reason for the war is true. I am not talking about history because if digging in the past is done, we will turn out to be as bad as the baddest nation of all even though we have done many good things. This is another clear example of why the church is right, and in these times even devout catholics turn against church because the worldly matters make them blind and forget certain facts.

There are some things which point to whether vatican was right or not. Even though the US and Britain has done many good things, the bad shares are there as well. Who else have the world's most no. of wmd? Who wants every other nation to sign CTBT and would not sign itself? The US created Taliban along with Pakistan and supported pakistan's training terrorists against the soviets back then. In the 1971 war between India and Pakistan where Bangladesh requested India's help to acquire freedom, the US sent a carrier with a nuclear weapon and to clearly nuke India, and India's strong ally Russia, threatened to nuke the entire US if they didn't back off and only then they did. If we go back into history more and more could be found. I hate saying these things but when talking about ignorance, one should understand what ignorance really means. There are bad people, but evil against evil is against God and that is what vatican says, and even though we have done a lot of good things, we have done a lot of bad things for others as well. It is good to know this because most people do not know these things happened. It is clearly not something that someone would want to remember, but as catholics we should be more open minded and understand what the truth is, to the full. Trying to justify actions by opposing the pope and the church by trying to dig in history in search of the good things done could backfire by provide the same amount or more of bad things as well. God will ask one simple question. "Why didn't you follow my words? Didn't I tell you in my book clearly that you could understand? If I, your lord God came down for each of you and suffered pain that none of you could ever imagine, why can't you just obey what I said about love, peace and forgiveness? Why are you trying to find out reasons to go against the decisions of my church and my teachings because of earthly reasons? Are my words not satisfying for you? Do you ridicule my words and dare disobey me after the infinite love that I have for you and every man and woman that I have created in my own image?" He simply stated it all in plain words so that even the most intelligent and the most foolish could understand, but I guess earthly reasons are more powerful nowadays. Satan is indeed the King of this world for now, like God said. This just demonstrates his power to lure others into his trap. If he could do that to a multitude of angels and even one of the apostles, how weak are we pitiful humans who are digging up reasons to go against his teachings?

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Joe, you are simply failing to understand my postion.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

i find it very odd that of all posters here, I'm the only one who has suggested that the only definitive solution to the Middle East situation is evangelization.

I also find it odd that many voices are raised condemning the Pope as though he was maliciously wrong on this issue when in fact, as I have argued, given what he has been told by those "experts" around him, and given what he experienced of European style warfare, it makes perfect sense to take his position.

Remember, the Vatican hierarchy (all 40 of them) don't surf the web like we do, they aren't plugged into the world's top 10 Media outlets on a daily basis... they don't have their equivalent to the CIA, NSA, or even CNN... alot of what they get to go on are diplomatic info from nuncios - which may be more or LESS accurate.

Thus we saw in the priest scandals of last year that most Vatican officials didn't see it coming, they didn't react as quickly and with as much seriousness to it as one may have thought needed...not because they knew all the gory details but didn't care, but precisely because THEY DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE GORY DETAILS.

Moral judgements can only be made on the basis of information - if you don't know the details, any decision or judgement you make is bound to be a shot in the dark.

I'm copying below an old message I sent someone to give you an idea of how well I think I know the situation and why my faith in Christ's Church and His Vicar is not shaken. I don't condemn the Pope or cardinals of malice or evil. I think I'd conclude the same things they do if I only knew what they know.

"I hear you. It's tough to not feel anger. But patience is required. We Americans tend to be supremely confident in our intentions and weapons. Europeans are not confident in their intentions or weaponry... remember, the "front-lines" of WWII passed right through every villiage of Europe leaving an indelible mark on everyone. >Then there's the mystical motives; Cardinals are after all, priests. They strive to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"... I think that while on a human level they understand the demands of justice, they are also conflicted by the supernatural considerations of what war means for Saddam and about 100,000 of his henchmen's souls...eternal damnation.

>Most Lay men are at most worried only with the salvation of people we know - our children or close relatives. Priests of Jesus Christ however, take on the responsibility to pray and sacrifice for the salvation of complete strangers - especially men who currently are grave sinners... Whereas we tend to see evil as something personified (kill the sinner, you get rid of the sin), they tend to see evil as a disease inflicting people who could always be cured through God's grace. >None of this makes the war any less "just" - but it does help explain their reluctance and attitude that can be misinterpretted as "wishful thinking" by us. >Finally, there is the Church's centuries-old experience of eating bitter "humble pie" and the law of unintended consequences... They really worry about Islam rising up as a single entity - because it once WAS a single empire threatening all of Europe and Christianity... At the time of the first crusade, Islam was divided - and thus the initial Crusade was a success. But 89 years later, and in reaction to a colonizing Europe, Moslems united and began their 500 year march towards Vienna. > Whereas us Americans have despised the Moslem "threat" since the time President Jefferson sent the new US Navy to sink the Barbary Pirates (the terrorists of the 17th century). We've never known a united Moslem threat. We may very well live to see one as 3rd world regimes begin to "smell blood in the water" or think a coordinated effort to "shame the US" would be worth it. >War is serious business. We will of course win in Iraq - but then what? Much prayer and sacrifice (of our time, of our vices, or wasteful hobbies) will be required. >The US is in major need of a re- evangelization - 20 million or so "fallen away Catholics" need to be brought back in and 100 million "unchurched" people need to be reached - and if not by us Lay Catholics... then by whom?

In other words KIWI et al. I never said, thought, or think that the USA is perfect or that we don't need conversion and continued improvement. Indeed, if anything is true it's that the USA has always been critical of itself, its intentions, the purpose and reason for its own existence...hardly the attitude of "arrogant Empire".

I also think that the Church needs reform - serious reform especially of lay formation and spiritual education. Most lay Catholics are woefully catechised and have little formal training in the truths of our faith and the reasons behind our moral doctrine... and this means us lay men should pick up the slack...

Finally, I believe Pope John Paul II is a saint and will be considered "the great". Not because he was (is) perfect in every way, or that he solved every problem and weakness of the Church flawlessly... indeed no Pope or saint ever solved ALL problems.... but because He has taught by word and example that there are always more things to be done, and better ways to do things - and that sometimes sheer holiness of life opens doors that all the editorials and debates can't.

While some people are smug (or at least appear to be) in their position on the "war" I have continued to take this to prayer. I think I know what is right and why. I seek out more reasons. I'm condemned for this and complete strangers are wishing that "pianos be dropped on me from great heights".

Be careful what you wish for.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Joe, you said

'Remember, the Vatican hierarchy (all 40 of them) don't surf the web like we do, they aren't plugged into the world's top 10 Media outlets on a daily basis... they don't have their equivalent to the CIA, NSA, or even CNN... alot of what they get to go on are diplomatic info from nuncios - which may be more or LESS accurate'

Joe, do you seriously believe this? You truly think that the Roman Curia are not informed on world affairs, don't have techonology at their disposal, don't even have CNN, are somehow removed from the rest of the civilised world? Do you think the Headquarters of the biggest Christian Church / Organisation on earth are living in the dark ages?? You don't think the 'Vatican Heirarchy' has a team of people working away in the background, carrying out different tasks, ensuring they are kept informed of important matters?

Irrespective of our personal beliefs on the truth of what the Holy Father said about going to war with Iraq, I honestly don't think we can say that he didn't state an informed opinion on the matter.

God bless Sara

-- sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 22, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Sara, I lived in Rome for 4 years. I have seen the offices of the various Vatican dicasteries and departments. When I left they were JUST getting computers for the first time! They were JUST getting their website up and running. That was in 1999.

It's also a FACT that of the 1 billion Catholics on earth, there are only 2000 people working in the Vatican, and of those, only a couple hundred actually work in places where policy is made and information is shared. The vaunted CDF (Ratzinger's dept.) has about 40 people.

Imagine. 40 people to handle the inundation of information flowing in from 4600 dioceses and 125 countries. Imagine the loads of dossiers, the accusations and problems that need to be looked into, the theologians and books sent in for review... it's a huge task and given the few numbers of staff (as highly qualified as they are) it's really no wonder it sometimes takes YEARS for any given scandal or problem to be solved from "Rome".

Given their work load it's also no wonder they don't have time to keep abreast of the fast changing pace of American media info.

Why is this hard to believe? Look. When the Monica Lewinski scandal exploded in the US the European press didn't make a big deal about it for weeks... there is a definite lag time and difference of focus between what is HOT here in the US and what is HOT in Europe.

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.

Some have newly acquired laptops. Most accept the idea of the internet in principle and recognize that it can be a "good thing" but they don't spend their days surfing like most of us do in between chores and work.

Like normal mortals, the officials in the Vatican, especially the Secretariat of State who deal with countries mostly make decisions based on what they know - personal contacts, reports gleened from excerpts cut out of larger and more detailed studies...local church Media such as Civiltas Catolica or L'osservatore Romano.

They won't have access to wire-taps, satellite photos, espionage and reems of other information sources that the US Government has, nor will they have time to create and absorb information readily available on the internet (in English mainly) from the Internet regarding issues such as military capabilities and strategy of the United States armed forces, intelligence on terror links to Iraq, and other highly relevant information.

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 omniscent and possess capabilites beyond their means (both in manpower resources and financially)!

Look, it'd be like me getting in a huff because I hear that the Swiss Guard didn't take on the German SS during World War II.... well, but then knowing the history and actual situation changes everything: 100 Swiss infantrymen armed with rifles are no match for a tank division!

But if you didn't know the history and actual situation of the Swiss Guard you might draw the wrong conclusion that Pius XII was holding them back out of cowardice or malice...

I just don't blame the Vatican for not knowing what we know because I realize their limits. But for the same reason, I don't promote the myth that they know everything that we know and more - they may certainly know some insider things... but I highly doubt they have information readily available to them concerning the fast flowing and changing situation in the Middle East...

If I was a billionaire I'd set up a foundation to purchase the best laptops and servers available to plug in the Vatican (as well as to conduct routinue "bug" sweeps to make sure foreign intelligence operatives are not listening in on their phone calls). I'd also help the Vatican by financing lay assistants for their nuncios to cull through Media and other sources for information relavant to their various responsibilities - presenting well balanced dossiers on people, events, and situations for the Holy See to keep track of.

But alas, I'm barely a "thousandaire" - with kids.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Joe

You seem to be under the impression that Europe is lagging behind with news. As you get your news in the US, it is being reported to us in Europe; at the exact same moment. We receive Fox, CNN, and CNBC. . You used the Monica Lewinksi scandal as an example of us not being aware of what went on in Europe. Unfortunately we had blanket coverage of that story as the news broke. To be honest most people here weren’t all that interested in it. (The British Governments historically have led the way for scandals I’m afraid…that was OLD news! :-))

The Church, whether the Holy See or other Sees, already employ the laity to carry out work which the clergy cannot do, or don’t have the time to do. All of the dioceses and Bishops’ Conferences, in many different ways, support Rome and supply information.

If an individual diocese doesn’t have a press officer or communications officer then the Bishops’ Conference often would. Officers are sometimes employed to represent the Church at Government level.

You mention the fact that most of the information on the internet is in English. Many, if not all, of the people in the Vatican will speak English. The Vatican draws its people from countries throughout the world. Some are employed as translators to translate the many documents they receive from around the world. Indeed many priests will speak English, Italian, and often another language too.

I agree that the Vatican won’t have access to some of the things that the US Government, or NATO for that matter, has. However, perhaps we could agree that Our Holy Father probably has a Direct Line to God? (and yes I know in this case he wasn’t speaking ex-Cathedra, and therefore not making an infallible statement, but I personally trust his judgement)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 22, 2003.


Response to What exactly does the pope say? Why is he against the war?

Sara, there is a vast difference between a diocesan communications director and someone whose chief responsibility is to absorb news and create dossiers on any given topic from both public and private sources... that is the work of the CIA and others, and often the task of Nuncios...but on a vastly smaller scale.

What are we to make of statements from Stafford and Martino regarding such media myths as US soldiers intentionally burying "100,000" Iraqi soldiers at the end of Gulf War 1 or the US dropping bombs on civilians when all they ask for is bread? As holy and good men as those Cardinals are, their statements were not only off the mark they also were just plain wrong.

I can only imagine this is so because their sources of information were European and biased rather than American and exhaustive. Did they do their homework? These guys are diplomats...if they spoke the way they did and we didn't get a garbled Media translation, then they're woefully misinformed....

It's also besides the point that most Vatican officials know English. My point isn't that they couldn't follow the news, but that given their work load they simply can't be expected to know everything. In addition to this, most of the clergy don't in fact surf the web - so even if you have splendid Catholic lay people working in diocesan hubs, you don't necessarily have a flow of useful information going to the curia people who need it the most.

(Truth be told, most diocesan newspapers and info-gatherers are not even considered as professional as secular ones. Don't blame me, that's an industry opinion - and it is certainly reflected in the advertising and financial aspect too.)

Look, the recent Priest scandal is a case in point: my contacts in Rome thought the whole bruhaha was a Media circus from January until at least mid to late April, when the Vatican was finally made aware of the seriousness of the issue by US Bishops...

Once the Pope and Curia did realize that it wasn't all smoke and mirrors, the gears began to turn and things started to happen.

At the time I defended the Vatican's supposed "silence" (that was a story in its own right for at least a month) by pointing out that the Holy See doesn't react to crisis on the US News Media 24 hour feeding cycle.

With respect for the justice of the war, the Vatican IMHO, simply didn't have time to think things through as they did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and other "humanitarian interventions" in which they begged the "international community" to intervene militarily!

Those conflicts resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and months upon months of helpless UN dithering before anything was done... they were also in Europe - right across the Adriatic. This gave everyone time to think things through and sift propaganda from truth. Both times, the Church came down on the side of Muslim civilians being slaughtered by communists.

This time (in Iraq) we had statements from a public archbishop in Baghdad towing the Party Line that armed intervention was wrong, that only the "people" would suffer, that the UN embargo (not Saddam) was to blame for hunger, starving children, etc... and lookee here, the Curia seemed to accept this as prima facia truth.

Yet just because the Media didn't show starving babies, raped women, and firing squads, doesn't mean it wasn't happening... Saddam harmed more Iraqis than Serbia harmed Bosnians and Kosovarians - yet he did it out of sight and the Media dropped the ball (cf. CNN's revelation that they surpressed news for the sake of access).

Like everyone else in the world who seems to believe it only when they see photos these Church men accepted the idea that Saddam - for all the hype of him being a "bad man" wasn't quite bad enough... and the atrocities not quite severe enough... to warrant humanitarian intervention.

They certainly followed the script that this was a political move, unwarranted by the US' security concerns... a conclusion you can only draw if you choose not to believe US government sources and some Media outlets... eyewitnesses and other defectors...

Again I don't think this conclusion is due to malice. Just a lack of information and good Nuncios and other info-gatherers.

But because they choose not to believe what the US government told them, they were doomed to be cut off from all but pre-screened and sanitized Official Iraqi Media sources, including CNN and others who scrupulously avoided the truth.

I'm not saying the Nuncios are dumb or malicious. I don't think so. But I am saying they're overworked, understaffed, and generally don't have the web-savvy culture needed to gather the information for themselves on what is going on.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 22, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ