How is the Pope helping prevent another world war?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

A terrible tragedy is occuring as the world watches the US unjustly declare war on Iraq. Millions of voices around the world are having no effect on Bush. The Pope has lived a long life teaching the value of Christianity to the world; would the Pope not consider placing himself in Iraq as a peace symbol for all faiths? I don't beleive Bush would attack these poor people and spark a world war if the Pope choses to intervene. I hope this dosn't sound naive, but I really feel the Pope has a last chance to remind all nations of the importance of love and peace not only through prayer, but through firm and pecefull action.

-- Corina Moody (corinamoody@hotmsil.com), March 18, 2003

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Corina.
You are one of very many people who has been led mistakenly to believe that the pope has declared the (potentially) coming military action as an "unjust war."

He has not said (and, I believe, would not say) such a thing in advance of the conflict. Under the current circumstances, he does not have (and knows that he does not have) all the facts needed to make such a judgment.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church leaves it up to the government leaders (the only people with access to all pertinent facts, including secrets) to make the judgment. That is why the pope basically said today that leaders must judge correctly and will have their decision on their consciences.

You can be sure that the pope knows that the coming military action may indeed be in accord with "just war" criteria. If he was sure that it would be unjust, he would have (long ago) prohibited Catholic military personnel to take part in it, under pain of sin. Not only has he not stated such a prohibition, he has not even suggested that the military exercise a choice to "conscientiously object."

In light of all this, the pope obviously will not be going to Iraq. I am a Catholic who believes that the coalition to disarm Iraq is on the verge of doing the right thing, something that should have been done in 1991.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.


John,
Would you believe that dubbya has exausted all diplomatic avenues and that he has come to the last resort?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 18, 2003.

"Would you believe that dubbya has exausted all diplomatic avenues and that he has come to the last resort?"

I think the past twelve years of diplomacy, or rather the failure of, indicates that all avenues have been exhausted.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.


The Americans on the forum should read their own history. Amarica held back in the first world war as neutral and again in the second. Due to increased military power on their part Americans feel they can turn their backs on the world and become Uno Numuro.

Reality is they are doing two grave things here - firstly showing themselves a bushleague war mongers - secondly the foolish pride of an elected President. They did not learn from Korea or Vietnam. Perhaps they as a culture may never attainthe status a what is termed a civilized society which takes about 500 hundred years historically.

As a last note when the USA kills Iraniana 8K for example using antiquated war measures the reality will be a silent war made of both chemical/biological weapons resulting in 8.0 million USA homeland residants.

Do not be surprised at water tainted food stuffs uneadible smallpox/anthrax/polio/various forms of dysentry along with new and wonderful mutated viruses.

Yes Mr. Bush has played the part of a shoot from the hip laughable but extremely dangerous despot. Again I say the fool has killed us all. Do remeber he will not be in the front lines rather safe in the back playing war.

America has lost it dignity this period and will be remembered as the only nation to have attacked a country of they fear. Paranoia in the simplest form is EAT OR BE EATEN whichis the rule of the jungle.

Graduates of Coors College will celebrate these days.

Einstein was asked what the weapons would be used in the Third World War. His answer was " I am unable to question regarding WW111 but I will state the weapons of the Fourth War will be ROCKS.

Thanks Mr. Bush you ruined the world neighbourhood.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 19, 2003.


Melissa, If you are to take a look back at 10 years of working UN resolutions in Iraq, you might want to take a look at Resolution 242. The world has been working that one for over 30 years and seems to be willing to continue to see it through without war or invasion.
Many close to this UN effort believe that diarmament was happening with US military standing by and they were reporting that with straight faces.
I believe that SH's fate was sealed the day the supremes handed over the crown, that 9/11 was the portal for this invasion, and any moments of diversion from this path (the visit to the UN) was to feed the coalition of the wanting. The rest has been smoke and lies.
Read Robin Cook's resignation speach to the House of Commons from the other day. He did a nice job of speaking for me.
This invasion sets the stage for a new world order and it looks like an invitation to new world chaos. Dubbya has traded his position of brilliant diplomat to commander and he has opened the door to threatening variables in a region and culture known for it's ferosity and unpredictability.
While domestic issues are significantly altering our lives it seems folly that this invasion is taking up the total focus.
Then there is that entire other argument about where the real threat may lay, if dubbya is intent on war.
Dubbya would dismiss the pope's feedback just as easily as he has the efforts to draw in a second resolution.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 19, 2003.


An interesting development has come to light regarding the connection between Iraq and 9-11. The 9-11 planner/mastermind shiek mohammed, who was recently captured, is apparently, according to a leading terrorist researcher, actually an Iraqi intelligence agent who's been directing al queda efforts against U.S. targets ever since the 1991 Gulf War. This was reported in the Wall Street Journal as an opinion column from the researcher. If this turns out to be true, it changes everything from a perception of justification for the war. It just may be that Iraq is not only responsible for assassination attempts on President Bush (I), but also the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 (both of which were known to have been planned by this ostensibly Iraqi agent).

Just food for thought. Bottom line is this. If U.S. forces go in and locate caches of forbidden bio/chem weapons (which they know through the testimony of defectors and satellite intelligence exist in hidden bunkers under the sands of Iraq), then our President is right regardless of world opinion - and the world owes him a big apology and eternal graditude. I truly believe that while his diplomatic efforts may have been orchestrated better, the President Bush is indeed being led by God in this effort. It sounds strange I realize, but I sense God's hand of grace in this. Just my opinion.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


I am not a fan of war. I am not a violent person. However, I do feel that many people often overlook the necessary evil that war sometimes is. Throughout our history as a world, we have seen many good things come from war. Ending of slavery, Ending Hitler's reign, freeing people from dictatorships, allowing people to worship the Lord freely... The people of Iraq have been suffering for a long time. How long should we sit by doing nothing while children starve and people are tortured?

It is in this time that we need to stop arguing about whether or not the pope is doing all that he can. Instead we need to pray for all the people involved and hope that this war comes to an end with as few lives lost as possible. The time for protest is over. The time for prayer for lives is here.

-- I. Ben Thinking (Curious@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.


Jmj

Hark! Hush! Methinks I hear some "frog-o-philes" ribbiting in the background! To one one them, I will say -- in the words of a past wag of the forum (Eugene Chavez, I believe) -- "Fermez la bouche(ard)!"

QUOTE: "The Americans on the forum should read their own history. America held back in the first world war as neutral and again in the second."

COMMENT: They were not attacked, did not feel threatened, and were not bound by treaties to intervene. The American response was thus morally acceptable. This time they have been attacked repeatedly (for over 30 years) and still feel threatened. The American response will now be morally acceptable. [People who don't know enough facts should keep silent, lest they put their foot in their bouche(ard).]

QUOTE: "Would you believe that dubbya has exausted all diplomatic avenues and that he has come to the last resort? ... Read Robin Cook's resignation speach to the House of Commons from the other day. He did a nice job of speaking for me."

COMMENT: I will not answer questions addressed to me by an ultra-liberal who admires such morally inept characters as Robin Cook and Ramsey Clark -- which at the same time disrespecting the chief executive as "dubbya," even after I asked him to show respect by speaking of Mr. Bush, President Bush, or George Bush. Sad to see that this forum has at least one U.S. citizen who gives "aid and comfort to the enemy."

QUOTE: "An interesting development has come to light regarding the connection between Iraq and 9-11. The 9-11 planner/mastermind shiek mohammed, who was recently captured, is apparently, according to a leading terrorist researcher, actually an Iraqi intelligence agent who's been directing al queda efforts against U.S. targets ever since the 1991 Gulf War."

COMMENT: This is interesting news. There has also been other evidence out there for several months (tying Iraq to 09/11/01), ignored by the liberal media. However, even if there were not even a shred of linkage, U.S. military action would be justified. (I can't go into the details here, but may be able to do so later on another thread.)

QUOTE: "I am not a fan of war. I am not a violent person. However, I do feel that many people often overlook the necessary evil that war sometimes is."

COMMENT: I agree with the rest of IBT's post. However, it is not right to speak of all wars as "necessary evil" (or worse). That is why we have the Catholic doctrine of "just war." A conflict could not be both "just" and a "necessary evil" simultaneously. We are now entering a "just war" to end "unnecessary evils" -- or, more accurately, we are now entering one of two things, depending on how you want to label it:
(1) a new "battle" within the just "War on Terror" ... OR
(2) the final "battle" in the just "Gulf War" that started in 1991 and was temporarily suspended by a cease-fire (now broken by Iraqi failure to live up to the conditions).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.


John you say that the usa were not attacked in the first and second world war and so it was just of them to abstain. could you please tell me at what point has the usa been attacked by IRAQ?

-- elle mcpherson (orange@order.com), March 19, 2003.

Please do not talk of the gulf war as "just" that conflict never need hof occurred. Iraq was morethan ready to accept a deal which involved retreating from kuwait and many immediate changes in the iraqi weapons collection. You may discard this and say that iraq needed to be punished or that they falsely promised to remove weapons, but this would have meant an attack could still have been made at a later date without direct border battles and causing many more than would have been made casualties of kuwaiti people and allied forces.

-- elle mcpherson (ihatejohn@ihateisabel.com), March 19, 2003.


Please Corina, don’t heed what John Gecik is saying.

He is supporting a war that the pope and his top aides (Vatican Officials) EXPLICITLY declared “not to meet the traditional just-war criteria”. Together with the pope in the opposition to this war are virtually all bishops in the world, including all rites, countries and even those not in communion with the pope (the orthodox). If this is not the most glaring sign of the Unity of the Church in recent times, I cannot see what could be.

To say otherwise is either a total lack of reading capacity or a mentally blocked attitude that twists everything one reads. Many people in this site published here tons of citations of the pope and Vatican officials in the last months. They are spread all over the “war-threads” of this forum. On the other hand, John Gecik was not able to post here even a single one Vatican declaration supporting this war. Many American Cardinals, including James Stafford, the President of the Council for the Laity, also voiced their opposition, showing that to oppose this war one does not have to be “anti-American” as John likes to say in his prejudiced mind (that the USCCB has taken the same position should be evidence enough of the bigotry of Mr. Gecik when he call everybody that disagrees with him “anti-Americans”). Here’s an excerpt of what Cardinal Stafford said:

“Contrary to past experience, the American government has not offered conclusive evidence of imminent danger to its national security. Its case rests on the alleged imminent threat of mass destruction by the Iraqi government of urban centers in America and elsewhere. Thus far the case has not been convincing to many citizens in most countries.”

(From the “Inside the Vatican” magazine)

Mr. Gecik is unethically using the credibility he built here in the last years to promote a personal political agenda that is in obvious stark contradiction with the Holy See’s position. In fact, the result is that Mr. Gecik’s credibility here is rapidly vanishing, as was keenly pointed at by Emerald. He is in fact telling people, who got used to resort to him as a secure reference on the Catholic Faith, to ignore the pope and to choose George Bush as their moral leader.

What Mr. Gecik must understand is that he is not the only one here who is knowledgeable about Catholic Doctrine. And he is not the only one with access to information. His twisting of our Faith, our Catechism and our pope’s declarations to support his political agenda are not going unnoticed. In fact, the arguments he keeps repeating in this forum (and which he repeated again in this thread) were many times rebutted in other threads. Just now I posted a message in another thread showing how his argument that “Bush has secret information” is extremely fragile. In another thread, Chris Butler showed that his claim that the pope may not declare this war immoral, and that only Bush is responsible for judging that, is flawed. Contrary to other catholics here who would like to support this war, like Joe Stong and Hollis, John not even engages in the debate, repeating, like a parrot upon Bush’s elbow, the same flawed arguments 100 times rebutted. Hollis and Joe, on the other hand, have engaged in civil debate, which have been taking place for some days now. We have been exchanging ideas and came to agree about many things. So, Hollis and Joe humbly acknowledge that their position is in contradiction with that of the pope, and are coming here to find out why this could be. Mr. Gecik, on the other hand, stops short of saying that the pope actually supports this war, when he is not arrogantly saying that he “disagrees with the pope” (I wonder, who he thinks he is to do that?). This shows that his line of arguing in the defense of this war has not even internal consistence: one day he “disagrees with the pope”; the other day, he agrees with the pope, because he (the pope) is not actually against this war. He must think we are illiterate and cannot read what the Vatican is saying. That’s, unfortunately, coherent with his consistent arrogant and self- righteous attitude in this forum, whatever may be the issue at hand. He must have forgotten that Pride is the most grave and destructive sin.

So Corina, pay attention to what the pope and his aides speaking in his name are saying. Not to what John Gecik is saying. He may have a bunch of doctrinal information about the Church, but that does not make him a God appointed, Holy Ghost assisted, interpreter of our faith. Some humility is really lacking in him these days.

Let’s pray that John Gecik abandon the paths of dissent and comes back to be an obedient son of the Church, accepting humbly the pope’s teaching.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


we all know where this is going: this is Imperialism dreamt up by a Protestant and a Jew a decade ago when they had nothing better to do. it is a Godless policy that is broadly derived from Ghengis Khan's approach to life, and it belongs to the so-called "neo" Right whose "architects" are described as the "thinkers" of the Right. at no point will the dubbya "administration" actually admit to this policy (so even they must see that it really stinks).

and here lies the parallel. dubbya is in denial ("hey, i am a liberator") and the neo- Right Catholics are in the same boat ("hey, this is a Just War and you are an unpatriotic, and what about the poor little children etc etc, OH AND THE POPE IS WRONG OR HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID WAS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY OR HE MISSED THE POINT OR [INSERT LATEST SOUND-BITE] ---- BUT BY THE WAY I AM HARD CORE ORTHODOX SO YOU'D BETTER LISTEN TO THE POPE".

the Protestant Right and the Jews of America are all lined up to do whatever they want. be a Catholic, don't be drawn in. listen to the Holy Father.

May God Bless Pope John Paul II.

-- US Interests Only (Tommy.Franks@Iraq.com), March 19, 2003.


Hey Kiwi, are you out there?

I really need some help here! I do not have all that time to keep posting here!

God Bless you.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Thanks Atila, many of your points are true. Nice to see you around. Only history will show all war longing Americans what a great mistake this war is/was. It will cost America many, many years of terrorism ahead of us... Sad but maybe a lesson so much needed for the American nation.

-- Rita Pangruas (RitaPangruas@next.com), March 19, 2003.

Atila,

You can simply state your disagreement with John's opinions without the be-rating remarks. It will make your argument look so much stronger.

I personally sway from one opinion to another, as various news reports, etc., come to light.

But it seems to me, that those who claim to be promoters of peace are among the most verbally violent on this forum.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 19, 2003.



Anna and Matteo,

I am aware that it may sound childish, but the fact is that it was John who began to attack me with calumnies, last November. Since then, he goes on calling me (and any other who disagrees with him, for that matter) "radical liberal", "anti-American" and so on.

I know that one error does not justify another, but I ask your understanding that I am only human and fallible. I had never called him names before, or anyone else. He did.

Sometimes my attacks on him may seem harsh, but I am prepared to defend my position that John is acting unethically, repeating arguments already contradicted without even trying to respond to them. Although this may seem a personal, ad hominem, attack, I do so pointing at the errors in his discourse. He, on the other hand, keep only saying "Nay, I will not respond to ultra-liberals etc." I expect you can admit that this is unnerving, given the enormous effort people like Chris Butler, Kiwi, me and others are doing to present our (the pope's) case with sound arguments. It is doubly unnerving when the tone of his messages is that of one speaking dogmatic truths, and not his personal opinion. I would not bother about that, if it was not John, who is respected here as someone who knows orthodox catholic doctrine very well, using this credibility to unethically push his political agenda as if it were catholic doctrine. Just see his posts! The way he says “Nay, this is something a Catholic may disagree with the pope”, “this is the correct way to interpret CCC” etc. are written with an authoritative style that does not fit what is being said. He NEVER added something like “in my opinion” or “I think that” in any of those messages.

Anna, your saying that “promoters of peace are among the most verbally violent on this forum” is unjust. Just look at what John has been saying about everybody who disagrees with him! If you didn’t, you should. He calls me (and others) “anti-Americans”, “radical liberals” etc. without even caring to say why. In my case in particular that’s a plain lie, a calumny. I challenged him to show where, in my 4 years in this forum, I stated any unorthodox idea. I do not know if he does not respond to our arguments out of arrogance (“I will not waste my time with liberals etc.”) or out of lack of arguments.

But I ask you, why didn’t you reprimand John when the only thing he had to say was “you are radical liberals, anti-American bigots”? Where were you and Mateo? Do you think is it fair that John goes on dismissing everybody who disagrees with him in that calumniating way? He has made those ad hominem attacks at least three times in the last two days! He even insulted the pope, something that REALLY unnerves me!

I’ll try to cool down, but I will not tolerate John posting his personal opinions as if they were Catholic Dogma, because it is misleading to Catholics who are not so knowledgeable and got used to think of him as an “infallible teacher” of all things Catholic. I would be bypassing my responsibility of showing what the Church position really is about this issue, and letting people be mislead by his supposedly “authoritative” attitude.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Atila,

I'll respond to a couple of points you write so that I can better express my feelings. You write:

"He NEVER added something like “in my opinion” or “I think that” in any of those messages."

Regarding the this quote, John may not always say "in my opinion," but he bases his statements either on Church sources or secular sources (news, UN statements, etC). Depending on the source, one can easily infer whether he's trying to say that something is a "Catholic position" or his own personal position.

You write:

"But I ask you, why didn’t you reprimand John when the only thing he had to say was “you are radical liberals, anti-American bigots”? Where were you and Mateo?"

You mentioned that you're looking for a term (like traditionalist) to describe him. To me, the terms liberal/conservative/pro-American/anti-American are simply terms. We could argue whether the terms are offensive or not; but this really isn't my point. My point is that John, you, and I have opinions that we're trying to reconcile with Church teachings. Our opinions may be consistent with, inconsistent with, or not relevant to Church teachings: one of the three.

You write:

"I’ll try to cool down, but I will not tolerate John posting his personal opinions as if they were Catholic Dogma..."

If John's opinions (or your opinions) are supported by explicit, relevant text from Catholic sources, we can make the connection. I've read John's posts for a while, and I know that he is quite careful in choosing words to properly convey his intent. I don't think he has taken the "I speak for the Church" stance any more than you yourself have. And that is my only point. :-)

If we could all make the assumption that all of us are searching for Truth, it would make the debate a bit more civil. I'm an idealist! :-)

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


WOW! I posted the "QUOTE/COMMENT" message, above, earlier today. I just dropped back in to see if there were any responses and, what do I find?

(1) a couple of whines from the most vile pornographer ever to hit this forum ("elle"), a person who will never get a response from me on anything, and ...
(2) an abusive message probably from a certain quasi-American dissenter posing as someone else ("Tommy Franks"), and ...
(3) five -- count 'em -- five obnoxious rants and personal attacks from an anti-American who knows little or nothing about this topic. [As the sayings go, "The empty tin can makes the most noise" and "The truth hurts."]

Thanks, Anna and Mateo, for trying to rein an abusive person. I have barely skimmed the above messages, because they add up to so many words, and I am a slow, careful reader. If I can find time to read them fully, I may decide to reply. However, there is so much long-windedness and intemperateness involved that it may not be worthwhile. One of the hardest things for me to deal with at the forum is people who take 1,000 words to say something that could have been said in 100, and it's even worse when those 1,000 words lack any factual information or lack any valid/logical arguments or lack both. What a waste of time reading such posts can be!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.


We never did get around to that conspiracy theory discussion, Mateo. Thank God, huh? lol. Since that time, I have added four more deadbolts to my front door.

John, there is in fact a very serious discrepancy which has arisen lately with the advent of this war, in that those who have been given to using, in discussion and debates, a certain working understanding of assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church, are most manifestly breaking the rules of their own understanding.

It is absolutely clear to me, manifest beyond of a shadow of a doubt, that these people are most definitely doing the same things that they claim the Traditionalist are doing.

Imho, and certainly not surprising to you at all, I take this as a vindication of the generalized Traditionalist stance. Notice I say generalized, so as not to affirm anything that this or that particular traditionalist might say.

What I think it demonstrates is not so much that this war is right or wrong, or that this traditionalist is right or wrong, but that people don't quite have the right understanding of what it means to exhibit true assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I don't think ChrisB. had it right either, God love him, but... at least he was consistent and seemed to move himself into position in relation to a fixed principle based on what he discovered, or supposed that he had discovered. I mean, the willingness was there.

See, to me, it is a little bizarre that people aren't seeing clearly the contradiction which has arisen here.

I'm not indicating whether I think this war is right or wrong; I am even not indicating exactly what I think it means to assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church.

What I am saying, simply, is that the prevailing understanding of what it means to assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church is not what it ought to be, and even if it is the right way to interpret it, the ones who use this against the traditionalists, about having this certain type of complete assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church, are at this very time most definitely breaking their own rules, their own admonishments they have made time and time again against the traditionalist, in backing this war.

!!!

O Happy Fault. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 19, 2003.


Emerald said:

“It is absolutely clear to me, manifest beyond of a shadow of a doubt, that these people are most definitely doing the same things that they claim the Traditionalist are doing.

(…)

What I am saying, simply, is that the prevailing understanding of what it means to assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church is not what it ought to be, and even if it is the right way to interpret it, the ones who use this against the traditionalists, about having this certain type of complete assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Catholic Church, are at this very time most definitely breaking their own rules, their own admonishments they have made time and time again against the traditionalist, in backing this war. “

You are absolutely correct Emerald. That’s what I, Chris Butler, Kiwi and others have been showing here all the time.

However, you a re generalizing a bit. The only person in this forum who is contradicting himself and breaking these rules is John. I am not, Chris Butler is not, Kiwi is not, Gordon is not and even Hollis and Joe (who tend to support this war) are not. Hollis specifically told us that he finds difficult to understand the pope’s position, but that he submits even not understanding. Joe said something similar. It is only John who is claiming a "right to dissent". Mind you, you cannot generalize and claim that all catholics here are showing that same inconsistency. John the only one doing that, and is remaining more and more alone in his patent contradictions.

So, don't take John's position as the one of all Catholics in this site. His is an isolated position and, of course, he does not speak for all catholics here. At this time, it seems he only speaks for him and for Bush.

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Here's a quote from a newspaper:

"Vatican specialists noted that John Paul's opposition to a U.S.-led offensive against Saddam Hussein is not coupled with any condemnation of the Iraqi leader's own despotic behavior, or his buildup of weapons of mass destruction.

During World War II, Pope Pius XII maintained a conspicuous silence about the rise of Hitler. He never issued a condemnation of the Nazis' persecution of the Jews."

What do you people think of this text?

One gross lie in each paragraph!

Where did I find it?

Well, in "The Washington Post", one of the "reliable sources" JFG tells us to trust.

Thank you very much. I prefer "L'Osservatore Romano". By the way, the TV news here said that the Vatican Newspaper director asked Bush "to stop speaking in the name of God". Good advice for some people here! I'll post the quote here as soon it is published in the Internet.

Ah! the link to the above text: http://www.washtimes.com/upi- breaking/20030304-074921-4070r.htm

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Atila writes:

"So, Mateo, if you think THAT is civil, well… What can I say?"

Atila, I'll confess that things are getting hot on both sides of the argument. John has characterized you in a way you don't appreciate. You have characterized him in a way he does not appreciate. I apologize for singling you out: I pray that you and John (and me and everyone else) will imitate Our Lord:

Psalm 145:8-10 - "The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love. The LORD is good to all, compassionate to every creature. All your works give you thanks, O LORD and your faithful bless you."

Psalm 103:8-9 - "Merciful and gracious is the LORD, slow to anger, abounding in kindness. God does not always rebuke, nurses no lasting anger."

And from Proverbs:

Proverbs 19:11 - "It is good sense in a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense."

I believe that John (and everyone else) has an opinion that he is sharing. I don't believe that he claims to speak for the entire Church, just as I don't think you are doing so. I do hope that you will refrain from appeals that John is wrong because of a supposed "isolation." I don't see how such a statement could be relevant in debate.

War is never an easy decision. We must pray for our soldiers and any innocents who suffer because of the war.

God bless you all, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


Sorry, I meant "The Washington Times", of course.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.

Atila writes:

"Well, in "The Washington Post", one of the "reliable sources" JFG tells us to trust."

Considering that most would characterize the Washington Post as a leftist rag, I would be surprised if John would call the Washington Post a "reliable source to trust." John, are you a big fan of the Post? :-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


"Sorry, I meant "The Washington Times", of course."

Well, that changes things!

PS--we posted at around the same time.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


Quoting from the Washington Times article:

"'Some think the Church's representatives are idealists,' the cardinal [Vatican secretary of State, Sodano] said at a lunch with a small group of Vatican journalists. 'We are -- but we are also realists.'"

This is the trouble with the "We must agree with the Pope's opinion" argument. Most (if not all arguments) that the Vatican has presented are based in geo-politics, not religion (faith and morals). The litany is endless. We shouldn't go to war because:

* A possible backlash against Christians in Iraq.

* A possible backlash against Christians in other Muslim countries.

* This will hurt the Christian-Muslim dialog.

Etc, etc, etc. These are geo-political reasons. When religious reasons come up, the statements are not against unjust war, they are against all war. Of course we should be against war; but when a just war is prosecuted, it is just, despite the innocents who might suffer because of it. Right?

Oh, boy...now I'm a traditionalist...sorry Atila! :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


Mateo said:

“I apologize for singling you out”

That’s ok, never mind.

“I pray that you and John (and me and everyone else) will imitate Our Lord:”

Thanks. I will try to slow my anger and be worthy of your prayers.

“I believe that John (and everyone else) has an opinion that he is sharing. I don't believe that he claims to speak for the entire Church, just as I don't think you are doing so.”

The *tone* of his writing is, IMHO, “official-like”. But this is of course my personal opinion and I am prepared to admit that it may be my interpretation of his intentions is wrong.

However, what I am posting here most of the time are the pope’s and Vatican officials opinions. When I present a personal opinion, I say so, as can be clearly seen in my posts. But as for the Holy See’s “opinions”… if THEY are not speaking for the entire Church, I really do not know who may be.

“I do hope that you will refrain from appeals that John is wrong because of a supposed "isolation." I don't see how such a statement could be relevant in debate.”

I did so to show that John’s position does not reflect all Catholics’ opinion here. That someone may believe this is evidenced by Emerald’s post pointing to John’s contradiction and then generalizing about Catholics who explain him the Ordinary Magisterium doctrine.

Anyway, I’ll try to slow down, as you asked.

God bless and thanks for your prayers.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


Mateo, I addressed the relation between Morality and Prudence in a response to Joe in the other post. Please go there and see why, IMHO, the Vatican is sustaining that this is an immoral war (one of the reasons being it’s imprudence). I also put there an extensive explanation why this war does not comply with the first two criteria for a war to be just.

I suppose you are not implying that the pope is only considering geo- political reasons and ignoring the morality ones?

God Bless!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


"...generalizing about Catholics who explain him the Ordinary Magisterium doctrine."

I fear my little brain will never really understand the nuances of what is and isn't required by assent to the Ordinary Magisterium. I know that people have poured a lot into trying to explain it; but there are limits to my brain's ability to understand some things, and well, this is one of them! :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 19, 2003.


That’s ok.

But I still think that, for a faithful catholic, when in doubt, the safer way is to side with the pope, don’t you think? That's the attitude Hollis is taking, and I think he is right.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


At this very moment, innocent people are beginning to be bombarded…

Let’s pray for them.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


It’s a devilish coincidence that this war should begin at St. Joseph’s feast.

“The Pope offered a prayer for the intercession of St. Joseph to 'watch over the entire ecclesial community." And he added a petition to the saint, "as a man of peace, to obtain for all mankind-- especially for those threatened in these hours by war-- the priceless gift of accord and of peace."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21287

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 19, 2003.


I heard they took control of Iraqi radio already.

I couldn't help but thinking, you know... they've got control of the radio station, alright, now send in Howard Stern, Dr. Laura, NPR, a little rap and the Ditsy Chicks, and the rest of the country will surrender in no time.

Now that would be the American way.

In all seriousness, Atila is right. Innocent or guilty, they do need prayers, right now. People will die and will need it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 19, 2003.


Hi Gents Emerald if that doesnt work, 5 mins of "AMerican Catholic Hip Hop" will finish them off, such a genre exists, talk about weapons of mass destruction. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh enough to send anyone packing. Atila the "first rule of fight club"... do not try to engage JFG in discussion he diasgrees with, a complete and utter waste of time.

Hi Corina President Bush believes he is doing the right thing. That does not make it right in the eyes of our Church. Despite what some here have tried to tell you on a Cathoilic forum THE CHURCH DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS WAR UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. ANYONE WHO TRIES TO TELL YOU OTHERWISE IS NOT PRESENTING A CATHOLIC VIEWPOINT but a personal viewpoint, not endorsed by the Catholic Church indeed not endorsed by many Christian denominations at all.

President Bush is not Catholic, he doesnt believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. His relgious group (the Southern Baptist Church I believe) are amongst one of the few religious groups in the world to support the war.

Were it not for a large number of conservative Catholic voters in America Bush would ignore the Pope completley. The President can afford to pay lip service to the Catholic Church on this issue in AMerica, because otherwise orthodox Catholics strangely leave their faith (and often their sense of reason) behind when a war is at hand. The reasons behind this strange behaviour is another discussion altogether but its goes to the heart of the psyche of what it means to be an AMerican citizen. American first. Catholic well and truely second. To those CAtholics outside AMerica this is bizare behaviour, but it is accpeted, even encouraged by many supposed Catholics here.

Believe me Corrine our Holy Father and Church has already intervened trying to "remind all nations of the importance of love and peace not only through prayer, but through firm and pecefull action" Unfortunately Mr Bush is not listening but more despiciably supposeded Catholics are also not listening. Thats the real shame, the fault is not with the Pope wbut with the American "faithful" in our Church.

WHile our prayers and thoughts should be with the soldiers of both sides, lets not forget for the most innocent in all of this- the Iraqi children who will die, I have just heard the war has begun.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.


Kiwi, I was missing you. :-)

A brilliant post, as always. I guess JFG is right. You have the skill to say in a few words what I take thousands to get to the same point. At a time when JFG was more charitable, he defended me from attack from others because of a misunderstanding caused by my bad command of English, which is not my native language. It had to do with the difference between the words “Jew” and “Jewish”, on a debate about Ariel Sharon.

“Atila the "first rule of fight club"... do not try to engage JFG in discussion he diasgrees with, a complete and utter waste of time.”

I’ll try to remember that. :-)

“President Bush is not Catholic, he doesnt believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. His relgious group (the Southern Baptist Church I believe) are amongst one of the few religious groups in the world to support the war. “

In fact, Bush’s group is the United Methodist Church. One of its leaders appeared in a TV commercial opposing the war, but it seems there is no unified position inside his Church, from what I have read. But you are otherwise correct. Very few religious groups are supporting this war, I think even in the US. I have read that even the American Jewish community is divided on that.

“The reasons behind this strange behaviour is another discussion altogether but its goes to the heart of the psyche of what it means to be an AMerican citizen”

Some day we might try to discuss it and try to understand this bizarre phenomenon from a psycho-sociological point of view :-) Of course we should make clear that there are brave exceptions, beginning with Chris Butler, a really coherent man.

The war has begun and innocent people may be already dying.

Let’s pray for them.

God bless (and try not to abandon me here alone with the Lions! :)

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


Thanks for the correction Atila, and apologies to any Southern Baptists out there. My home computer has died, so I am limited to a few quick minutes at "work".

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.


ps "I guess JFG is right"

I hope your'e being sarcastic! ;-)

-- Kwii (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.


Southern Baptists, although not Bush's denomination, is actually one of those few groups supporting the war.

About John being right, I was referring to what he said about my writing too much.

I hope your computer gets cured. :-)

God Bless.

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


BTW, I had to come here and quickly correct you about Bush's church before JFG came and pointed at that as THE utterly incontrovertible proof that all those who oppose this war are “radical liberal anti- Americans who base their illogical arguments on a complete lack of factual information”. :-)

Take care, my friend! The way things are going on here, even spelling errors may become "proof" that we are idiots, an so illogical, and ergo radical liberal anti-Americans! I am triple-checking all my sources... just in case :-)

That’s the way the world goes…

God Bless.

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


"I'm glad that the American Ego will get the lesson it asks so much for. Right now they are on a level of international bastards acting accordingly... How much more terrorism will it take to get the ego right and to start to behave as a civilized democracy? It remains to be seen..."

More wishful thinking? Our last war was against Afghanistan and international opinions assumed we were going to get a lesson there, too. How dare we uproot repressive governments and dictators. Hmmm....

So much ill will and suspicions against America. That's a shame.

God bless,

Mateo

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


"God bless President Bush and every brave soldier that will be risking there live to rid the world of this evil."

"War is never an easy decision. We must pray for our soldiers and any innocents who suffer because of the war."

Thanks to David and Mateo for these words. My baby brother is one of those Marines crossing into Iraq as we debate before the safety of our computers. He needs our prayers more than our bickering, as do the rest of the military serving in this campaign. While I am in a constant state of worry for my brother, I am still supportive of this military action. And it doesn't make me a bad Catholic.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Some interesting words of St. Hildegard, 1179 a.d.:

The time is coming when princes and peoples will reject the authority of the Pope. Some countries will prefer their own Church rulers to the Pope. The German Empire will be divided. Church property will be secularized. Priests will be persecuted. After the birth of Antichrist heretics will preach their false doctrines undisturbed, resulting in Christians having doubts about their holy Catholic faith.

At that period when antichrist shall be born, there will be many wars and right order shall be detroyed on earth. Heresy will be rampant and the heretics will preach their errors openly without restraint. Even among Christians doubt and skepticism will be entertained concerning the beliefs of catholicism.

Toward the end of the world, mankind will be purified through sufferings. This will be true especially of the clergy, who will be robbed of all property. When the clergy has adopted a simple manner of living, conditions will improve.

At this time as a punishment for their sins Christians especially will attempt armed resistance to those who at that time are persecuting them, sensing no concern for the death of their bodies.

A powerful wind will rise in the North carrying heavy fog and the densest dust by divine command and it will fill their throats and eyes so they will cease their savagery and be stricken with great fear.

Submitted only as an item of general interest.

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


"Melissa, If you are to take a look back at 10 years of working UN resolutions in Iraq, you might want to take a look at Resolution 242. The world has been working that one for over 30 years and seems to be willing to continue to see it through without war or invasion."

Somehow I knew this issue would surface. True enough, Chris, the world has been grappling this delicate situation, and failing to assist in Resolution 242. Need I mention, the US is willing to aid the Palestinian effort when a fair and diplomatically elected prime minister is established to govern and take responsiblity of any recognized independent state. Arafat is the obstacle.

Also, Res. 242 is quite different to the current situation. Palestine and Israel battle each other. They have not launched acts against the US. Iraq supports cells that have launched acts against the US. And from recent reports, have had plans to continue such support. And even though Iraq did not directly attack on 9-11, they lauded the success that the Al-Quaeda network achieved.

Why not secure the security of peace-willing nations? It is no secret that, if given the latitude, Saddam would likely test his waters as he did back in the eighties, as he did with Iran. Recall his use of WMD with them? Who's to say his megalomania would not rear itself again? And if we rolled over and ignored the issue, what of the North Koreans and Iranians? Carte Blanche to test the boundaries? Perhaps this war will tell those draconian regimes that it is time to understand that their submissive, domineering and oppressive ambitions will no longer be given just a cursory glance or politically charged diatribe against their governing methods.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), March 21, 2003.


Amazing quote, Emerald!!!!

"The time is coming when princes and peoples will reject the authority of the Pope. Some countries will prefer their own Church rulers to the Pope. (...) After the birth of Antichrist heretics will preach their false doctrines undisturbed, resulting in Christians having doubts about their holy Catholic faith."

Thanks for sharing it.

I'm praying for your brother and for you, Melissa.

God bless you all.

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


Finally! Now when Bin Laden is caught and Sadam is dead (thanks to our great leader for that!) we can finally live free and safe! Congratulations! Let's have a feast!

-- Larry Nichols (LarryNcl@hotmail.com), March 22, 2003.

"While I am in a constant state of worry for my brother, I am still supportive of this military action. And it doesn't make me a bad Catholic. "

i think you'll find it does. it makes you a good American, but a bad Cathholic. you are just treating our Pope as a fool.

-- mandy (opal@genev.de), March 24, 2003.


I was looking throughout the Internet for authority supporting our (Roman Catholics) ability to ignore the Holy Father's advice and teaching on the war on Iraq. I admit that I am coming to the issue with a pro-American (second), pro-Catholic (first) bias. I think it is unfortunate that we should have attacks on people on this very forum who wish to voice their opinions or thoughts but it is more unfortunate that anyone should work out an apology for the position that it is "correct" or "acceptable" to ignore the Holy Father's very clear instruction. It is ironic that many of the same arguments that used to be used to explain why "liberal Catholics" need not follow the rubrics of the Mass or the strict teaching on human life, would now be used to justify ignoring our Pope. It is very troubling that the President would dismiss the Pope's messenger by refusing to allow him to speak about his visit (on Ash Wednseday -- ironically) from the White House grounds. The only way someone can get around the teaching of the Pope on this issue is to dismiss it. You cannot say that you are aligned with the Holy Father and yet disagree on this very important point. You have to assume that the Pope is: 1) wrong; 2) biased by a desire to stop the war for some reason other than the spiritual basis upon which he publicly offered as his basis; 3) no longer the moral authority of our Church; 4) not worthy of consideration. I suppose there may be other reasons but not likely considered by anyone on this forum: 1) he is not properly installed at our Pope; 2) his public pronouncements are just one more piece of information to consider; or 3) there is a moral obligation to ignore him and the Church's teaching. This isn't the first time we, as Americans, have chosen to ignore the Church's teachings when it is not convenient. I don't know that ignoring the Holy Father's advice and teaching would be tolerated by many of us if it was on an issue about which we didn't have a counter-acting selfish or nationalistic desire. While we debate, our brothers and sisters on both sides of this conflict are being killed. Children that we explicitly consider to be among the most innocent and most deserving of protection, are dying or losing their parents. I pray that Catholics and all Christians will speak loudly in support of our Holy Father's teaching and against the convenient or, to some, more desireable action of war. It is hard to believe -- and here is where I will be flamed (if not for anything else) -- that Jesus would instruct us to go to war (generally) or to this war. There may have been doctrines developed after His teaching that excused or justified war as an option. But I am not aware of explicit teaching by Jesus that would support war or violence against anyone. I know that the later "just-war" doctrine allowed us to fight Hitler. I also know that our souls belong to Jesus; not George Bush or any political leader. The Holy Father, in direct connection with the first Pope and Jesus' right-hand man, Peter, has offered not extreme pacificism. He has taught that which our Church has stood for and should stand for as based upon his reasoned understanding of the Church's history and our Lord's teachings.

May God Bless Us All.

Tim

-- Timothy J. Quinlan (tim@insidemagic.com), March 30, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Tim.
I really do appreciate your zeal for all Catholics to be submissive to the teachings given to us by each pope. However, you are making the same error that I have seen made by about fifteen people on about fifteen threads at this discussion forum, and it is leading you to (1) a false conclusion about our duty and (2) an unjust condemnation of what many Catholics are doing.

You stated [with my emphasis added]: "I was looking throughout the Internet for authority supporting our ... ability to ignore the Holy Father's advice and teaching on the war on Iraq. ... It is ironic that many of the same arguments that used to be used to explain why 'liberal Catholics' need not follow the rubrics of the Mass or the strict teaching on human life, would now be used to justify ignoring our Pope."

You need to avoid mixing apples and oranges. The dissent of some "cafeteria Catholics" in areas of morality or liturgy bears no similarity to the position taken by Catholics who support military intervention in Iraq.

Your basic error is found in the words I emphasized in your message -- "advice and teaching." You are right that it is "advice" (i.e., opinion, suggestion, recommendation), but you are wrong in calling it "teaching."

If it really were teaching or discipline (as in the case of contraception or liturgical rules), then we would be bound to be submissive to it. But what the pope and some of his closest advisors in the Vatican have stated is neither "teaching" nor "discipline." The form in which the pope and some bishops have made their statements makes it clear that they are private, non-binding attempts to apply the facts, as far as those men know them (and to the best of their ability to evaluate them), to the general principles know as "just war criteria." The Catechism gives government leaders (who have ALL the facts and the best ability to evaluate them) the right and duty to make the final decision.

Anyone interested in the subject of the conflict in Iraq and the morality of the coalition's actions should read Joe Stong's masterful message posted on March 21 on this thread.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 02, 2003.


To answer the question originally posed, the Pope can't help avert another war, not when the USA is involved.

I seriously doubt any US President with a shred of common sense would involve this Pope in anything that had to do with politics.

It would be madness for him to seek the Pope. The answer would be a loud and emphatic NO to whatever was said, other than capitulation to our enemies.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 05, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ