The prophetic words of God in Deuteronomy 32: 19 - 25 sound in my ear as if they were speaking about the United States, who was "provoked" by a stupid people on 9/11 followed by waging war with those same people today. The passage speaks of idols turning the people away from God and so God turns away from them and the people get provoked. What are our idols? They are sex, music, leisure travel, sporting events, alcohol and many more. The news reports today that the Iraq war has now edged out sex and music as top web search terms.

"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- War toppled sex and music as the most popular search term among Web users as the conflict in Iraq captured the attention of the online crowd."

Because of America's idol in its heart, a weak and foolish people will now trample upon America. What a joke on America by God in order to humble our sex-crazed minds.

In this passage from Deuteronomy, no one is spared, there is destruction without distinction, and all are laid waste.

"19 The Lord saw it, and was jealous; he spurned his sons and daughters. 20 He said: I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom there is no faithfulness. 21 They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation. 22 For a fire is kindled by my anger, and burns to the depths of Sheol; it devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23 I will heap disasters upon them, spend my arrows against them: 24 wasting hunger, burning consumption, bitter pestilence. The teeth of beasts I will send against them, with venom of things crawling in the dust. 25 In the street the sword shall bereave, and in the chambers terror, for young man and woman alike, nursing child and old gray head."

Does anybody else see America in this passage?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 24, 2003

Answers

Yes. If not specifically, then in principle.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 24, 2003.

Bush in his arrogance has killed us all. Now the so called threat will become real in spades. He is truly bushleague.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

How anyone could truly be scared into being a coward by a bunch of moslem boys who are so "manly" and "brave" that they threaten unarmed, innocent civilians with acts of terror is beyond me. It doesn't scare me. It makes me mad. OBL is a whimp. He talks big - but notice he always has a mob of 30 guys waving Ak-47s, while packing one himself. Wow. Real hero there. Tough guy. NOT.

Secondly, if these moslem boys hate us so much - do you think they'll respect and love us if we unilaterally surrender, go home, and promise to be nice? Bullies never give up - especially when they see that their threats and bombast cows whole groups of people.

Any culture that produces boys that grow up beating women and children, targeting unarmed and innocent civilians as "martyrdom" and needs to scrounge around to the 12th century to come up with some problem with Christianity deserve to be defeated, and then converted.

Christians should not betray our faith because pagans hate us. Nor should we give up our call to evangelize because some thugs threaten us with bodily harm. And because they have carried out such cowardly acts of terror, those guilty and those who harbor and encourage them should learn a lesson: civilized people won't be cowed into submission by terror.

You can't negotiate with terrorists. You have to defeat them. This doesn't mean imitate them though: we never specifically target unarmed civilians and they snear at us for this! Let'em. We can still beat them. And we will, and then we'll rebuild their country and feed their people to prove we're better than they are.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 25, 2003.

This war is all about American self-therapy. The wounded American EGO needs a Rambo still TV to watch to "heal" itself - or so it thinks it will function. Of course, this therapy is as imbecil as the ego itself. Pity the world need to watch this pseudo-medical treatment without sending the patient to a mental hospital. Eventually, the patient will come there anyway, by forces of nature which created the civilized world...

-- Wicky Nantes (WickyNn9@hotmail.com), March 25, 2003.

Joe,

I think you missed my point. It is not that we ought be scared of a weaker people. It is that we are an immoral nation out of touch with God who blessed us. So we will be chastised appropriately. Just as we who are weaker than God have turned our nose up at him and offended him so we in turn will have a weaker nation offend us. Even if this war appears to end soon, it will go on in other ways. The terrorists or someone else just as foolish will eat at us like a slowly growing infection or invading insects because we lust after what is disordered.

War is not the way to evangelize. If you did convert others with coersion it is likely that with time the same people will revolt. For example, when the northern countries of Europe were Roman citizens, this group had the least number of years living in a civilized manner prior to the Reformation. Some of these groups of pagan barbarians may have been forcibly converted after losing battles. Anyway, these same people were the very ones to become the heretics of the Reformation. So forcing religion fails.

I agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with but this was being done adequately with weapons inspections and negotiations until war broke out.

Regarding the bible quote above. This smaller "unmanly" bunch of boys in Iraq are exactly the ones God uses to humiliate his rebellious children. Here is a quote from a bible commentator on part of this passage because he says it better than myself:

"God would therefore plague them with despicable enemies, that were worthless, weak, and inconsiderable, and not deserving the name of a people, which was a great mortification to them, and aggravated the oppressions they groaned under The more base the people were that tyrannised over them the more barbarous they would be (none so insolent as a beggar on horseback), besides that it would be infamous to Israel, who had so often triumphed over great and mighty nations, to be themselves trampled upon by the weak and foolish, and to come under the curse of Canaan, who was to be a servant of servants." (from Matthew Henry Commentary which is probably Protestant)

Wicky

I can see your point in the first part of what you say. I disagree if you think civilization itself is a sign of the presence of evil in the world, rather the opposite is true. The world is good except for the tendency for man to sin and thus make a mess of some of it some of the time.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 25, 2003.

How anyone could truly be scared into being a coward by a bunch of moslem boys who are so "manly" and "brave" that they threaten unarmed, innocent civilians with acts of terror is beyond me.

Who are you talking about?

It doesn't scare me. It makes me mad. OBL is a whimp. He talks big - but notice he always has a mob of 30 guys waving Ak-47s, while packing one himself. Wow. Real hero there. Tough guy. NOT.

I don't understand who it is that is afraid of him, except his own people. Who doubts the man is wicked? Who said he was a hero? What does tough consist of anyways? Secondly, if these moslem boys hate us so much - do you think they'll respect and love us if we unilaterally surrender, go home, and promise to be nice? Bullies never give up - especially when they see that their threats and bombast cows whole groups of people.

Who doubts what the character of these particular men consists of? I don't know anyone who doubts what it is that they are.

Any culture that produces boys that grow up beating women and children, targeting unarmed and innocent civilians as "martyrdom" and needs to scrounge around to the 12th century to come up with some problem with Christianity deserve to be defeated, and then converted.

jake@msn accurately characterized the Muslims a while back, but many screamed racism at him. Don't look at me; I didn't kiss the Koran. I don't have any explaining to do.

Christians should not betray our faith because pagans hate us.

Is this not the sum and substance of what many have been trying to get across, pointing out the ecumenism has no doctrinal basis in our Holy Roman Catholic Faith?

...Nor should we give up our call to evangelize because some thugs threaten us with bodily harm.

...or for whatever reason, including not trying to offend anyone with the truth.

And because they have carried out such cowardly acts of terror, those guilty and those who harbor and encourage them should learn a lesson: civilized people won't be cowed into submission by terror.

What civilized people? This one, that pulls babies half way out of the womb and kills them? The one that contracepts its future? The one that chases down every manner of distraction from service to the Almighty God 24/7? The country that isn't Catholic, the one isn't even Christian, the pagan country founded upon the principles of freemasonry and which had it's roots in the French Revolution? The one that ignores the rich philosophical history of the Western Civilization? The one that drives a wedge between the aims of Church and State, between the temporal aims of men and the eternal destiny of mankind? This one?

You can't negotiate with terrorists. You have to defeat them. This doesn't mean imitate them though: we never specifically target unarmed civilians and they snear at us for this! Let'em. We can still beat them. And we will, and then we'll rebuild their country and feed their people to prove we're better than they are.

Do you think when we are done with that, that maybe we can get on with the basic message of Fatima?

This whole nightmare of a world could change in an instant by the hand of God, but only by His hand and not the hands of men.

After all, He brought into being with a Word.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Emerald - Bravo!!

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 25, 2003.

Emerald writes:

"The country (USA) that isn't Catholic, the one isn't even Christian, the pagan country founded upon the principles of freemasonry and which had it's roots in the French Revolution."

Emerald, I've got an open-ended question: what country/culture/society (besides the Vatican!) is a beacon of hope for Christianity/Catholicism? Who is closest to moving in the right direction to foster a society focused on serving God?

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 25, 2003.

An honest answer:

I have absolutely no clue.

That thought, yours, has definitely occurred to me though, and in a way, I think that is part of the trick... there doesn't seem to be one. To close off every door, every avenue of escape for the ones who really want to devote themselves to the hereafter.

Sort of like that scene in LOTR film where Gandolf suddenly realizes that the forces of Mordor are so much further ahead in their agenda than he thought. When he realizes he has been betrayed, all four doors close... north, south, east and west, and he is reduced to having chosen the way of pain; in other words, all that's left is a death to self and a crucifixion that preserves Christianity. I know I'm mixing up my analogy a lot there.

Yeah, I'm wierd and no, this doesn't constitute proof of anything. Just ramblings. We are in quite a quandry, though.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 25, 2003.

Joe, I want to apologize for coming across so abrasive up there.

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

Mike, you misunderstood me. The civilized world with its moral values will prevail even over this mental patient who tries to throw us back to the ages of violence and wars as a "solution" of conflicts. Thus we agree...

-- Wicky Nantes (WickyNn9@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

"Any culture that ..... deserve[s] to be defeated, and then converted"

Dominus Iesus: "With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.

Paul VI: "Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this Sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 26, 2003.

O.k., Mateo, I've got a decent answer to your question, and for nice change of pace, it isn't one of my farside musings.

I came across it this morning at a friend's house, quite by accident.

See this link to Hilaire Belloc's The Great Heresies. This link attaches to links at EWTN; the book is 1938.

Check out chapter 7; it says everything I've ever wanted to say, so I'll shut up and let Belloc say it. He does a better job.

God Bless.

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

Oh yeah, Mateo... Chapter 7's title is "The Modern Phase". That's the one I wanted you to see, but also the introduction.

Kiwi, check it out if you have time.

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

will do Emerald thanks

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), March 26, 2003.

Emerald,

Thanks for the link. Good reading. I never read any Belloc before. Maybe this portion of it is a good addition to the thread?

QUOTE

"Well, give it what name you like, call it as I do here "The Modern Attack," or as I think men will soon have to call it, "Anti-Christ," or call it by the temporary borrowed term of "Bolshevism" (which is only the Russian for "whole hogger"), we know the well enough. It is the revolt of the oppressed; it is not the rising of the proletariat against capitalist injustice and cruelty; it is something from without, some evil spirit taking advantage of men's distress and of their anger against unjust conditions.

Now that thing is at our gates. Ultimately, of course, it is the fruit of the original break-up of Christendom at the Reformation. It began in the denial of a central authority, it has ended by telling man that he is sufficient to himself, and it has set up everywhere great idols to be worshipped as gods.

It is not only on the Communist side that this appears, it appears also in the organizations opposed to Communism; in the races and nations where mere force is set in the place of God. These also set up idols which hideous human sacrifice is paid. By these also justice and the right order of things are denied."

UNQUOTE

In summary, he also writes about "Christianity" not being a religion and it never was one. Further, they who call themselves Christians and are not Catholic are unified by a hatred for Catholicism. Also, that the USA and nations like it are mostly atheistic at heart, bent on materialism and ultimately on the destuction of the Catholic Church.

So to reply to Mateo:

"Who is closest to moving in the right direction to foster a society focused on serving God?"

It seems Belloc would say, it is NOT the USA because she doesn't cling to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 26, 2003.

Or the question, "Who is closest?" is irrelevent in an ultimate or eternal sense. Matt 12:30 "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." That notion may have been at the root of Emerald's first post.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 26, 2003.

I think you are totally right, Mike.

Well I guess that's the conclusion that's been the shadow getting clearer to me little by little. All along, it's been for me like a composite problem, and from what I can tell, it is composed of two parts... the doctrinal degradation and the lost ascetic aspect.

This should have been easy for anyone from another century to solve, looking from the outside in, but I was born into it in 1966. When you are born into it, and the deception is in full swing, there are few reference points you can grab on to in order to reconstruct what ought to be the case vs. the way things are.

I've known for a long time that something is obviously and seriously wrong about our Church in the world at this time, but it was until that ascetic aspect hit me that pieces started to come together.

When I say ascetic, I'm trying to refer to the genus of which, for instance, separation from materialism would fall under... or, dying to self or self sacrifice would fall under. Basically, forsaking the the here-and-now. For instance, what you might find in Thomas A. Kempis' Imitation of Christ, so austere that the modern man in his modern condition looks upon it as folly or quite frankly sees it as insane, or Alphonsus Ligouri's Preparations for Death. "Ascetic Theology" is the only way I know how to describe it. Meditating on the final state and realizing that nothing matters (dust in the wind, lol!) and that all the to-be-attained virtues seem to grow out of this understanding.

The way I understand it now, brought about by experiences I've been through, there are two parts: understanding of doctrine, and living like you really believe them. The current state of existence seems opposite: suppression or abolishment of doctrine, and a state of living that distracts the mind around the clock to prevent any thought of the condition of the soul to occur to a man, or any thought of death to approach his awareness.

I see our current age as a composite of the loss of the knowledge of the divine and the material distractions to keep this loss in play. I call it the Damnation Machine; like the ultimat perfection of a mechanism to induct souls and ensure their mass ruination. A machine of which men are the cogs and that feeds upon its own members or parts and serves no purpose exception "progress"; and progress never has a term or an endpoint, and therefore, it is pointless. It seems surreal, but I think that's what we have. The Great Apostacy; a near total wasteland out of which Christendom will rise to greatness again only by an act of God and in a spectacular manner.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

I wrote:

"Who is closest to moving in the right direction to foster a society focused on serving God?"

Mike writes:

"It seems Belloc would say, it is NOT the USA because she doesn't cling to the teachings of the Catholic Church."

I should say that I wasn't assuming that the USA was the answer when I asked this question. For some reason, I couldn't keep the Philippines out of my head when I pondered this question. I've met so many Filipinos with such a beautiful devotion to Our Lord.

Anyway, with regards to the USA: I don't believe the USA of 1938 is the same as the USA of 2003. Also, the USA really isn't a homogeneous society. The US culture of San Francisco is vastly different from Richmond is vastly different from Chicago is vastly different from Miami, etc, etc, etc. Though we have lost our local accents (thanks to TV), the culture certainly does differ from city to city, and from region to region.

Emerald, the Damnation Machine stuff is really thought-provoking. I've also sensed this phenomenon as a big spiritual problem.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 27, 2003.

Mateo

I see it now that you were asking a new "open ended" question as you had said. I have limited mental sight. Perhaps the Philippines is the one...a place with devoted Catholics not just nominal ones. I long for a Catholic City, I live in Nashville, TN and I am from Detroit, which has many more of us than Nashville does. I may return after my dental insurance kicks in and I get a crown done. It's quite different here in the Protestant Vatican.

Sincerely

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 27, 2003.

I've also sensed this phenomenon as a big spiritual problem.

I figured you did. Imho, that is an action of the Holy Spirit of the real kind; really subtle.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

"All the world wants is to make money, enjoy life, and impose its own will at all costs, even with violence, if this should unhappily seem necessary."

Pope John XXIII

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

"Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come." And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more, cargo of gold, silver, jewels and pearls, fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet, all kinds of scented wood, all articles of ivory, all articles of costly wood, bronze, iron and marble, cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human souls."

Rev 18

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 27, 2003.

Yeah, I've stared at that verse wondering the same thing too, Mike.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 27, 2003.

Does this war seem like the excessively conservative (Iraq) vs the excessively liberal (America)? Polar opposites like two big staticly charged metal balls, one +positive one -negative. And then the huge spark lept across the dead air space like an experiment of a mad scientist on a stormy dark night. The land of excess travelling across to the land of void. Like how nature abhors a vaccume when a huge pressure differential causes a whirling storm of destuction until the pressure is equalized. So do these men behave today in chaotic battle only to later simmer and brew for the next great spark of destruction.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 28, 2003.

Nice try.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 29, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, Joe S, for being a voice of clarity and good sense in the morass of hand-wringing and unjustifiable self-condemnation that this thread otherwise has been. How incredibly depressing to read all the foolishness from a mixture of (five) prophets of doom and anti-Americans. [I'm not including you, Mateo.] To think that such intelligent people actually believe the stuff they posted here! It's mind-boggling. How have they been so well fooled? What kind of trash are they reading and listening to? Heaven help them!

No time to correct all the errors, so just a couple here ...

QUOTE: "I think you missed my point. It is not that we ought be scared of a weaker people. It is that we are an immoral nation out of touch with God who blessed us. So we will be chastised appropriately."

COMMENT: This is false. One cannot speak of America as "an immoral nation." Instead, it is a place where there is a wide spectrum of morality observed in the people -- from extreme holiness (seen in millions) to extreme immorality (seen in millions of others). Just as it is wrong for anti-Catholics to come to the forum and trash the whole Catholic Church as "sinful" (rather than some of her "sons"), so no one has the right to put down the "U.S.A." as "an immoral nation." To communicate justly and accurately, stick with individuals, and kill the generalities. Generalities unjustly offend people and cause those who use them to fall into the kinds of fallacies seen above -- delusions of impending doom, chastisements, and the like.

QUOTE: "I agree that Saddam needs to be dealt with but this was being done adequately with weapons inspections and negotiations until war broke out."

COMMENT: What -- "adequately"? This is totally wrong. This kind of erroreous thinking is expressed only by four groups of people:
(1) Deceptive pro-Iraqis, who don't really want anything changed.
(2) People who are sorely lacking in factual information.
(3) People who have all the needed facts, but are of such low reasoning power that they cannot put the facts together to arrive at logical conclusions.
(4) Peace-at-all-cost folks, who don't even believe in a right to self-defense -- in other words, appeasers, a la PM Chamberlain.

QUOTE: "Don't look at me; I didn't kiss the Koran. I don't have any explaining to do."

COMMENT: Since the event occurred, I must have seen this kissing-the-Koran criticism of the pope a hundred times at this forum. I am absolutely sick of it! I demand that it be stopped until the people who want to voice it do the necessary research (or correspondence with the Vatican) to find out the following: (1) exactly what happened [who did what where and when], and
(2) whether the pope knew what the book was, and
(3) exactly what the pope meant by the kiss (if there was one).
NOT EVEN ONE of the 100 people who have raised their self-righteous complaints about this has ever really done the required "homework," but instead has relied one one set of disrespectful assumptions or another about the event. Then some of them even condemn the pope for bad "ecumenism," not realizing that the word "ecumenism" pertains only to efforts for Christian reunification, not to interreligious dialogue.

Come on, guys. Snap out of your funk!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 31, 2003.

John you are off base, I certainly do not support Saddam, and he was being contained. The facts you speak about, don't exist, except for American propaganda. This war makes no sense, beyond America's grab for control of oil (through it conglomerates), and the establishment of American idealogy in the Arab world.

The Americans are responsible for the food for oil program in Iraqi over the past 10 years roughly, and many western humanitarian groups, along with Vatican have been critical of this program, which does adequately feed the Iraqi people, yet all along the Americans claim that they support the Iraqi people, even after it is estimated that 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi children have died due to malnutrition because of America and Britain's actions!!!

America has a history, of supporting dictators (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are examples), that are pro-American, so it would not surprise me, that if America's plan of democracy for Iraqi fails, because the Arabs are not very good in that regard to put it politely, and as long as any future Iraqi dictator is pro-American, they will not lift a finger to remove him from power. Don't forget Saddam has been in power for 30 years AS A DICTATOR, yet the Americans at one time supported him by selling him weapons. Because he got greedy and wanted to take over the Middle East, which would be against America's interests, he is all of a sudden a bad guy.

The Americans are totally against Arab unity, no matter how that it is achieved, and that is why they hate Saddam. Any one person, who controlled all the middle east oil, would be too powerful for the Americans, as such a leader would have too big of a say in the world economy through the price of oil.

I agree that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam, but I also agree that Saudi Arabia would be better off without their dictator, King Fahd. The Saudi royal family, is as corrupt as can be, and exploiting the oil wealth of their country to provide for thier incredibly oppulent lifestyles.

Does the American media harp on against King Fahd? No of course not, because he is an American lacky. It's this double standard among others, which make the Americans hated in the Arab world. This hate will continue long after the Saddam is removed from power, and will continue to provide future problems to America.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

Here you go:

Vatican Against Food Embargos

17-October-2002 -- EWTNews Brief VATICAN ENVOY QUESTIONS "UNILATERAL" EMBARGOS

NEW YORK, Oct 17, 02 (CWNews.com) -- The Vatican representative at the United Nations has strongly criticized unilateral embargos, citing their negative consequences for civilians.

Archbishop Renato Martino recognized the legitimacy of international sanctions, adopted by world leaders in an effort to bring pressure to bear on regimes that violate international law. But he questioned the wisdom and morality of sanctions that produce suffering among the civilians of the affected countries.

The Holy See has frequently called for an end to sanctions on Iraq, pointing out that the measures result in suffering for thousands of innocent civilians. Archbishop Martino told the UN that the position of the Holy See has not changed, and the Vatican will continue to question such sanctions.

The Vatican envoy argued, in particular, that an embargo should never be used to block the flow of humanitarian relief to needy populations. He argued that "food and medicine should never be used as instruments of political pressure."

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

I wrote: > "which does adequately feed the Iraqi people,"

Which does NOT adequately feed the Iraqi people is what I meant.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.

John,

America is not a safe place to raise a family. It is in a state of decline. One look at the popular media says it all. Obviously that statement does not pinpoint individuals but that does not need to be done. There is only one indefectible group and it is not America. It is the Catholic Church. God does not promise that America will last until the return of Christ.

And regarding adequately dealing with Saddam prior to the war breaking out, it appears John that you oppose our pope who is clearly against America waging war on Iraq under the current circumstances. So which of the two you listed above describes John Paul II?

(2) People who are sorely lacking in factual information.

OR

(3) People who have all the needed facts, but are of such low reasoning power that they cannot put the facts together to arrive at logical conclusions.

P.S. The introduction to your post was rude. Bedside manner helps.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 01, 2003.

"...in the morass of hand-wringing and unjustifiable self- condemnation that this thread otherwise has been."

lol! Hand-wringing? John, do I look like (text) the hand-wringing type?

"How incredibly depressing to read all the foolishness from a mixture of (five) prophets of doom and anti-Americans.

That's one man's opinion.

"To think that such intelligent people actually believe the stuff they posted here!"

Ahhh... see, there's your error John. You assumed we were intelligent.

"It's mind-boggling. How have they been so well fooled?"

Now wait a minute. I thought you weren't into conspiracy theory. If we've all been fooled, who dunnit?

"What kind of trash are they reading and listening to? Heaven help them!'

Now there's my real beef with what you always allude to. Always assuming someone doesn't think anything unless they've read it or listened to it from someone else. I read and listen to comparatively little, and I never take anything at face value. Why do you think that if someone thinks something, they've been exposed to propaganda?

COMMENT: This is false. One cannot speak of America as "an immoral nation."

America is by and large an immoral nation. America is predominately pagan. That's all I ever seen. Should I doubt my senses?

Instead, it is a place where there is a wide spectrum of morality observed in the people -- from extreme holiness (seen in millions)...

Huh?

...no one has the right to put down the "U.S.A." as "an immoral nation."

The U.S.A. is predominately immoral and pagan.

...the kinds of fallacies seen above -- delusions of impending doom, chastisements, and the like.

How would you know if they are delusions? What if you are deceived?

QUOTE: "Don't look at me; I didn't kiss the Koran. I don't have any explaining to do."

Don't look at me; I didn't kiss the Koran.

COMMENT: Since the event occurred, I must have seen this kissing- the-Koran criticism of the pope a hundred times at this forum. I am absolutely sick of it! I demand... etc....necessary research...etc... to find out...etc...(1)...(2)...(3)...NOT EVEN ONE of the 100 people who have raised their self-righteous complaints...etc... "homework,"...etc...disrespectful assumptions...etc...

I aint doing nothing like that until you skee-daddle over to the thread entitled Vatican II -- revisited and answer my challenge, third post down.

But what is this obsession with intelligence? You keep saying things like that. Intelligence never saved anyone, and in fact it isn't always needed to get to the root of things. There are many gifts possessed by many people, and intelligence is only one... one that can't be measured. We don't need more intelligent people.

Come on, guys. Snap out of your funk!

Play that funky music, greenboy... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 01, 2003.

Jmj
Time to play "QUOTES" and "COMMENTS" again, I see. I'll do this in at least two pieces, the first pertaining to G. Vink
As the song says, "There is none so blind as they who will not see ...". People who know too few facts (i.e., anti-Americans) would serve themselves (and the world) well by keeping silent and learning from the informed. Those who know too little seem not to want to keep this a Catholic forum, but to change it into a political one.

QUOTE: "The facts you speak about, don't exist, except for American propaganda. This war makes no sense, beyond America's grab for control of oil (through it conglomerates), and the establishment of American idealogy in the Arab world."

COMMENT: Clearly, this is a direct quotation from the likes of Tarik Aziz. No intelligent Catholic could write such a foolish and offensive thing.

QUOTE: "... it is estimated that 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi children have died due to malnutrition because of America and Britain's actions!!!"

ACTION: Again, typical gross hyperbole from the bowels of the Saddamites. Unfortunately, it is parroted by an envious anti-American -- an unreasoning person who ignores the billions of Iraqi dinars wasted, by the regime of evil, on palaces and weapons, when they could have fed hungry Iraqis.

It's sad to watch as the blind fail to realize that the reason there exists an oil-for-food program is the simple fact that the terms of the 1991 cease-fire have continued to be violated. In one respect, we are seeing the final battle of that (just) 1991 war. Soon there will be no need for an oil-for-food program, because Iraq will be a normal nation with ordinary methods of trade.

QUOTE: "America has a history, of supporting dictators (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are examples) that are pro-American, so it would not surprise me, that if America's plan of democracy for Iraqi fails, because the Arabs are not very good in that regard to put it politely, and as long as any future Iraqi dictator is pro-American, they will not lift a finger to remove him from power. Don't forget Saddam has been in power for 30 years AS A DICTATOR, yet the Americans at one time supported him by selling him weapons. Because he got greedy and wanted to take over the Middle East, which would be against America's interests, he is all of a sudden a bad guy."

COMMENT: This is chock-full-o'-errors, but I won't list and correct them, because this has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is simply a torrent of vile, cross-the-border hatred and stupidity.

QUOTE: "The Americans are totally against Arab unity, no matter how that it is achieved, and that is why they hate Saddam. Any one person, who controlled all the middle east oil, would be too powerful for the Americans, as such a leader would have too big of a say in the world economy through the price of oil."

COMMENT: More steaming doo-doo, with nothing related to Catholicism.

QUOTE: "... Saudi Arabia would be better off without their dictator, King Fahd. The Saudi royal family, is as corrupt as can be, and exploiting the oil wealth of their country to provide for thier incredibly oppulent lifestyles. Does the American media harp on against King Fahd? No of course not, because he is an American lacky. It's this double standard among others, which make the Americans hated in the Arab world. This hate will continue long after the Saddam is removed from power, and will continue to provide future problems to America.

COMMENT: More inaccurate statements are steaming away here ... but one thing caught my eye: "It's this ... which make[s] the Americans hated in the Arab world." Here we have an alleged Catholic, a non-Arab, from a land neighboring the U.S.A. -- yet he is more full of hatred for America than half "the Arab world." We are getting a living example, in the person of Mr. Vink, of what a Catholic should not be -- full of anger, hatred, and envy ... so deluded by untrustworthy sources of information that he totally loses control of his intellect and emotions.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

John I am shocked! I used to think you were one of the more rational persons on this forum, and even appreciated your responses. You response is quite different from you past posts, that I wonder if it is someone is impersonating you?

> "Clearly, this is a direct quotation from the likes of Tarik Aziz. No intelligent Catholic could write such a foolish and offensive thing."

Don't debate it, just cut it down. I mean, if it is so foolish, and offensive, for what reasons?

> "... it is estimated that 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi children have died due to malnutrition because of America and Britain's actions"

I statement supported by the Vatican, as I listed above, and supported by humanitarian groups who are non-political. Sure Saddam is also to blame, but the Iraqi people are caught in a vise between him, and the cruel West. America and British governments don't care about the Iraqi people!

> "cross-the-border hatred"

Funny considering I have many American friends, and support Bush in winning the last election, and strongly support his pro-life work he has done in the UN, and the US government. Just cause I don't agree with the war, does not make me anti-American, or pro-Saddam. That's nonsense John and you know it. This for us or you are against us mentality was used by the Nazi's and Communists. It's also how Saddam operates in Iraqi!

> "We are getting a living example, in the person of Mr. Vink, of what a Catholic should not be -- full of anger, hatred, and envy ... so deluded by untrustworthy sources of information that he totally loses control of his intellect and emotions."

Coming from a guy who refuses to debate the points, beyond telling me I am wrong. Thank you for your intelligent commentary John!

Full of anger?

- Yes, anger against injustice in the world.

Full of hatred?

- I don't hate anyone.

Full of envy?

- Envy of what?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

Jmj

QUOTES from, and COMMENTS for, Mike H and Emerald this time ...

QUOTE: "America is not a safe place to raise a family. It is in a state of decline. One look at the popular media says it all. Obviously that statement does not pinpoint individuals but that does not need to be done."

COMMENT: Amazingly, I see again here more examples of what I said, last time, is a wrong thing to use: generalities. Why do I bother to speak when people have their hands over their ears? As millions have done, you have to work to make your own part of America "a safe place to raise a family." Many places in America are not at all "in decline." You just let yourself get pessimistic when you have "tunnel vision," staring at the bad stuff only.

QUOTE: "There is only one indefectible group and it is not America. It is the Catholic Church. God does not promise that America will last until the return of Christ."

COMMENT: I don't know why this is mentioned, but I surely agree with it. Nice to see something related to Catholicism, for a change!

QUOTE: "And regarding adequately dealing with Saddam prior to the war breaking out, it appears John that you oppose our pope who is clearly against America waging war on Iraq under the current circumstances."

COMMENT: I never "oppose our pope." Being in "opposition" is too strong a description of where he and I stand. The pope uses very careful language, but many people do not use sufficient care in interpreting it. He has expressed an opinion that I respect, because I too hate war (and the death, destruction, and waste of resources that result from it). However, following the Catholic doctrine in the Catechism, I look to the U.S. leaders to make a proper decision on this matter (whether and when to begin military action), because only they have all the necessary facts. People who lack some or all of the crucial facts do not have the ability to determine whether military action should begin or be delayed -- nor does the Catechism give them this duty or right. Including the pope, these people are more in the position of expressing wishes and hopes and exhortations -- urging national leaders to continue without military action for as long as possible.

QUOTE: "The introduction to your post was rude. Bedside manner helps."

COMMENT: Your opinion is noted, but not persuasive. I am not at anyone's "bedside" here. (If I were, I'd be gentle.) Instead I am constantly being forced (against my will) onto a debating platform. I have to be frank (not "rude") to correct, when people [moreso others than you, Mike] keep saying so many terribly wrong and provocatively insulting things.

QUOTE: "John, do I look like ... the hand-wringing type?"

COMMENT: I don't know about how you "look," Mr. Greenglass, but as to how you think and write ... Indubitably the hand-wringing type, sir.

QUOTE: "That's one man's opinion" [written in response to my: "How incredibly depressing to read all the foolishness from a mixture of (five) prophets of doom and anti-Americans."

COMMENT: One man's opinion, you say? Well, of course it is. What's the point? I don't waste time telling you the obvious -- "That's your opinion" -- after each comment you make.

QUOTE: "Ahhh... see, there's your error John. You assumed we were intelligent."

COMMENT: I've seen too many glimmers of intelligence to doubt it. (Besides, you would never have been allowed to enter Thomas Aquinas College unless you showed a lot of potential!)

QUOTE: "Now wait a minute. I thought you weren't into conspiracy theory. If we've all been fooled, who dunnit?"

COMMENT: Why do you ask this, when I immediately provided one potential influence (which has nothing to do with conspiracy) -- namely, the things that you are reading and listening to.

QUOTE: "Now there's my real beef with what you always allude to. ... Why do you think that if someone thinks something, they've been exposed to propaganda?"

COMMENT: It's called 52 years of observing human beings and their behavior in response to "propaganda." Keep in mind, though, that I did not make a declaration but a question ["What kind of trash are they reading or listening to?"]. I was trying to speak broadly here of certain potential influences on you, without excluding others that may exist.

What you are "reading" could be books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, forum posts -- some from unsavory [e.g., schismatic] or misinformed sources. What you are "listening to" could be TV, radio, tapes, friends, or even family members. There is no doubt in my mind that you (and the others I have opposed, above) are exposed to at least some of these influences.

QUOTE [in response to my, "One cannot speak of America as 'an immoral nation.'"]:
"America is by and large an immoral nation. America is predominately pagan. That's all I ever seen. Should I doubt my senses?"

COMMENT: You can't change horses in the middle of the stream. Either defend the original statement ["we are an immoral nation"] or take it back. You cannot contradict me by changing the phrasing of your statement. (Even your modified statement is very inaccurate ["predominantly pagan," indeed!], but not as wrong as before.)

QUOTE: "Huh?" [This very eloquent word was in response to my words: "[America] a place where there is a wide spectrum of morality observed in the people -- from extreme holiness (seen in millions)..."

COMMENT: Are you really unaware of the fact that there must be at least 2 million "extremely holy" folks out of the 260 million people in America? Come to think of it, you may really be so cynical and misinformed that you are unaware of those kind souls -- and this would explain your contrary and pessimistic outlook on things. If you could get over that misconception, you would enjoy life a lot more and realize that the Church is something very bright and beautiful, despite all of us sinners inside it. Then you wouldn't have to live in the past, going in search of the non-existent, elitist, idealistic figment of the traditionalist imagination.

QUOTE: "How would you know if they are delusions? What if you are deceived?" [in response to my, "...the kinds of fallacies seen above -- delusions of impending doom, chastisements, and the like."]

COMMENT: You prove my point. You want to believe in these things. They seem to give you a perverse pleasure, for Pete's sake. Just be ready to die one minute from now, sir. That's all that matters. The rest is fantasy for dreamers, and the confusion and unease that it inspires are what satan desires.

QUOTE [in reply to my reasonable demand that you research the "Koran incident", instead of continuing blindly to bash the pope about it, along with dozens of protestant predecessors]: "I aint doing nothing like that until you skee-daddle over to the thread entitled 'Vatican II -- revisited' and answer my challenge, third post down."

COMMENT: No, sir, it doesn't work that way. You and your cronies have been playing the Koran tune for a couple of years, without justification. Are you still too lazy to do the work you should have done years ago? You can't deflect my attention to your phony challenge about infallibility. (You know perfectly well that I know all about infallibility anyway, while you still know nothing with certainty about the "Koran incident.") Do something honorable for a change, sir. [Anyway, without having seen that thread ("revisited") or this one, I happened to post some comments (yesterday) about infallibility on Mateo's thread of answers to your questions. (Which reminds me that I still need your 13 replies about salvation. The nerve of you to require an answer from me about infallibility, when you failed me in the first week of January!)]

QUOTE: "But what is this obsession with intelligence?"

COMMENT: I have no such "obsession." If you object to something I said about "intelligence," please quote my specific words, and explain how they are against the Catholic faith.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Gordon.

You wrote: "John I am shocked! I used to think you were one of the more rational persons on this forum, and even appreciated your responses. You response is quite different from your past posts, that I wonder if it is someone is impersonating you?"

This is no impersonation, Gordon. I am still the same "rational person." I'm surprised that you have not figured out what is going on here. It's really a simple principal. It's known as patriotism.

I have been coming here for over three years, and I have said lots of nice things about Canada and some Canadians. (I immensely enjoyed a two-week drive through three provinces in 2000.) The only negative words I've ever stated about Canada have been (1) that I would prefer not to live under your nation's health-care system and (2) that I did not respect ex-PM Trudeau because he took a pro-abortion position. [By the way, I have never said the slightest negative word about Brazil.]

But, in return for my positive and respectful treatment of Canada [and Brazil], my fellow Americans and I have had our faces very frequently slapped by your [and Atila's] disrespectful words about America, her policies, her decisions, and her president (whom I love). As a well-informed American more than 50 years old, I have no trouble at all determining that you [and Atila] are far from well-informed, in that (1) you know nothing at all about certain important subjects, and in that (2) you believe inaccurate things about other subjects.

Therefore -- I will not stand by silently while any non-American who is speaking from a position of flawed and incomplete knowledge bad-mouths my country, its president, its policies, or its decisions.

So, if you don't like to read the kinds of things I have been writing, don't provoke me to write them. I am 100% intolerant of both anti-Catholicism and anti-Americanism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

John, no country is perfect, and I don't agree with America's foreign policy. The war is unjust, as agreed by the Vatican and Pope. Note, that other alternatives could have been explored before going to war, but Bush was not interested in that. They were determined to go to war from day one, no matter what Saddam exposed interms of WMD.

Your post was out of line, in that calling me stupid, is not going to bring me around to your position. You post comes across as arrogant, as why can't we all see it the way you are seeing it.

Big deal, you never criticize Canada. I don't worship my country, and criticize it a lot myself, along with millions of other Canadians.

I stand 100 percent behind everything I said above, and if you not interested in discussing it beyond calling me insults then fine. You are out of line, and hopefully you will see that, and apologize to me.

By the way, you forgot past Prime Minister to Canada like Brian Mulroney, and our current Prime Minister Chretien, both claiming to be good Catholics, and yet both fully supported and continue to support abortion.

btw, I don't think ending a post with "God bless you" makes any sense after all the insults you said. Maybe just a habit with you?

Oh and saying we are Saddam supporters because we are against the war, is absurd beyond belief!!! I cannot stress that enough.

> "It's known as patriotism."

Some people may call your level of patriotism, as fanactism.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 04, 2003.

Oh and saying we are Saddam supporters because we are against the war, is absurd beyond belief!!! I cannot stress that enough.

I agree with Gordon whole-heartedly.

Don't lump us with the portion of the French who hope Saddam wins. That's absurd. Now that the war is begun I pray for both sides but hope the USA finishes the job quickly. At our parish we are making rosaries for our troops. Many of the women who make them have family in the war. I don't criticize the current American war effort with them. I am simply arguing here along with the pope that the dropping of the first bomb was done too soon. Knowing this, it is difficult for a Catholic in good conscience to go into active combat in Iraq.

>:-)

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

Jmj
Hello, Gordon. I'll respond a bit more.

QUOTE: "John, no country is perfect, and I don't agree with America's foreign policy."

COMMENT: I never said that the U.S. "is perfect," so you shouldn't have mentioned that, as though you were refuting me. I never said that I "agree [fully] with America's foreign policy" either. I don't mind if you don't agree with it, and I don't mind if you criticize it privately. However, I do mind if you condemn it publicly, because you don't know enough facts to evaluate American foreign policy accurately [just as I don't know enough facts to evaluate Canadian foreign policy accurately]. To qualify to criticize it publicly, you need to live here full time and to know much more than you do know. [Please don't bother making the unconvincing claim that you know enough from the media. Another foreigner made the same wrong claim here, a few months ago, listing all his media sources (all of which appeared to be one or more of the following: anti-Catholic, anti-US-government, pro-death, ultra-liberal.]

QUOTE: "The war is unjust, as agreed by the Vatican and Pope."

COMMENT: I am amazed that you are so unaware of the facts that you could make such an erroneous statement. Good heavens! No wonder you get into unfortunate arguments with people. The pope has never stated that the War on Terror is "unjust."

QUOTE: "Note, that other alternatives could have been explored before going to war, but Bush was not interested in that. They were determined to go to war from day one, no matter what Saddam exposed in terms of WMD."

COMMENT: It seems as though you must have gone into a coma for several months, if you somehow missed the many "other alternatives" that were indeed "explored." Gordon, this comment proves to me that you are totally out of touch with reality in regards to the Iraq matter, so I am not going to waste time pursuing this with you any further. You have some good spiritual insights on certain threads, but you unfortunately step outside the depths of water in which you are capable of swimming. In matters like this war business, you have dived into the deep water and drowned.

QUOTE: "Your post was out of line, in that calling me stupid, is not going to bring me around to your position. You post comes across as arrogant, as why can't we all see it the way you are seeing it."

COMMENT: As you will find by re-reading the thread, this time carefully, I never "call[ed you] stupid." Although I may have slipped up a few times in three years, I have tried to avoid calling people "stupid" or "a fool" or "evil" (or the such-like), because I believe that the gospel tells us not to do that. However, there are times that I choose to refer to a person's action or statement as a "foolish" one or a "stupidity" -- i.e., something that is not in keeping with a person's otherwise decent character and normal intelligence.

QUOTE: "By the way, you forgot past Prime Minister to Canada like Brian Mulroney, and our current Prime Minister Chretien, both claiming to be good Catholics, and yet both fully supported and continue to support abortion."

COMMENT: I don't get it. The fact that I didn't mention them means that I "forgot" them? Let me get this straight ... Two years ago, when someone praised Trudeau on a forum thread, I was supposed to criticize Mulroney and Chretien? "Earth to Gordon ..." Please put your "thinking cap" on before you sit down to write a message.

QUOTE: "Oh and saying we are Saddam supporters because we are against the war, is absurd beyond belief!!! I cannot stress that enough."

COMMENT: Well, I "cannot stress ... enough" how outrageous it is that you falsely charge me in this way! I suppose I can understand, Gordon, how you may have made this error, but I never expected it from Mike H (who quoted your words and added: "I agree with Gordon whole-heartedly"). You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Gordon, just as you wrongly accused me of calling you "stupid," you also wrongly accused me of calling you a "Saddam supporter." Gordon and Mike H, go back and read the thread, and you will see that I never called you such a thing. It is a pure invention, apparently resulting from an anti-American [or anti-JFG?] fit of temper. I know quite well that you do not support (the late?) Mr. Hussein.

QUOTE: "Some people may [refer to] your level of patriotism as fanaticism."

COMMENT: Yes, and those people either (a) have no patriotism of their own or (b) hate my nation. But genuinely patriotic Canadians that do not hate the U.S. would not call my patriotism "fanatic." Those good people see and think straight.

QUOTE: "Don't lump us with the portion of the French who hope Saddam wins. That's absurd."

COMMENT: What, Mike? Are you cut from the same cloth as Gordon -- accusing me of saying things I never said? Come on. You are a better man than this. I never "lump[ed you] with ... the French." Re-read the thread (carefully), and you will realize this.

QUOTE: "I am simply arguing here along with the pope that the dropping of the first bomb was done too soon."

COMMENT: The pope didn't "argu[e]" that. He did not criticize the conflict (or the Coalition) after the first shots had been fired. He didn't even "argue" any position (i.e., give extensive, persuasive reasons) before the first shot -- and I admire him for that restraint, because it was an appropriate action, according to the Catechism.

QUOTE: "Knowing this, it is difficult for a Catholic in good conscience to go into active combat in Iraq."

COMMENT: Well, since your premise was wrong ["Knowing this"], it follows logically that it is not "difficult for a Catholic" to do this. This fact has been, at least indirectly, admitted by the pope, by the president of the U.S. bishops' Conference, and by the Archbishop of the U.S. Military Services.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2003.

John, that is the most stupid, idiotic, moronic, piece of crap I have ever read on this forum. Now how about I continue that for each paragraph that you said, and see what kind discussion we can have?

You posts center around dismissing what people said by saying cutdowns, and by saying that you are not calling the person these things, does not make you innocent of these insults. You are insulting me, and others by responding so. You're like a lawyer, playing word games, and twisting things so as to play the innocent.

You even take offense when there was no offense to begin with. I agreed with your condemnation of Trudeau, and provided a few more examples and you take that personally, when no affront was meant!

Trudeau by the way, was the "Catholic" politician, who not only introduced abortion into Canada, at a time when most Canadians were against it, but also was recently buried after having his funeral in Notre Dame Cathedral, which I consider a huge scandal for the Church to do. This is a guy who liked to be friends with Castro!

> "all of which appeared to be one or more of the following: anti-Catholic, anti-US-government, pro-death, ultra-liberal."

That's funny, as I never listen to liberal news sources like CNN, because of their liberal views, and I get a lot of my news from www.newsmax.com, one of the most right-wing, conservative, pro-war news sources around. They are also very pro-Catholic, as they have many articles that show the Church in a positive light.

CNN = Clinton News Network - I never watch it on TV, and never go to their website.

You think you have me all figured out, because I am against the war. I have always supported the Republicans in the states, and would sooner see a conservative government like that in power in Canada, then the string of liberal governments we have had. Our country has a history, of "Catholic" politicans, who not only brought abortion into our country, but continue to support it. Our Prime Minster in the last election, said at a Catholic school, that he was a good Catholic, and yet continues to support abortion. Thankfully, the Archbishop of Ottawa criticized him over that incident.

John, you can't see it, but I am one of your few allies on this forum, but the way you are treating me in this thread, I find it hard to support you from now on, and would sooner stay quiet then come to your defense. You used to be very rational, but I don't know if it's just the war issue, or something else, but your posts have clearly went downhill.

All this started between us because of your friend David, who got himself banned. You could not help yourself by defending this individual, who followed me from thread to thread cutting me down. You said he was "teasing". Maybe I should give you a bit of his medicine? I will not do that though, as I actually believe it to be sinful.

The Pope and the Vatican did say that this does not meet the conditions of a "just" war. After the war started, the Pope even said, something to the effect, it was a dark day for humanity?

Saying I have to live in your country to understand it, is simply incorrect. You don't have to eat cow dung, to know it does not taste good, to put it politely. I don't have to be a drug addict, to know, it's a miserable life.

Well time for your response. Continue with your cutdowns, as you seem to feel the way you word them, that you can get away with it. Some of the schismatic Catholics on this forum, debate with more civility than you do!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 05, 2003.

John,

you also wrongly accused me of calling you a "Saddam supporter."

Than I take back that portion of my comments and apologize for putting words in your mouth. I was following Gordon's comment on that one item and should not have. I am not anti-you nor anti-USA. You have been very helpful to me in the past on many posts and I am greatful for that AND you also have great value regardless of anything you might have done or not done.

However, my comments regarding the basic immorallity of the current war still stand.

You said: This fact has been, at least indirectly, admitted by the pope... in reference to my adjusted comment here that "the dropping of the first bomb was not done too soon" (word not inserted)

You agree then that the pope's references in favor of any war are at least not concise or clear but merely indirectly in support. It would seem to me that on a matter of very grave importance such as war, where the war action is the very last choice in reaching a solution, that the pope, if he makes statements, would need to be very clearly in favor of the war not just indirectly so. Thus if one were to err on the side of caution regarding the papal statments about the war, one ought to choose against making war for now.

Sincerely,

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

Jmj

Hello, Mike H. Thanks for your well-reasoned reply. However, I competely disagree with one of your main contentions, namely: " It would seem to me that on a matter of very grave importance such as war, where the war action is the very last choice in reaching a solution, that the pope, if he makes statements, would need to be very clearly in favor of the war not just indirectly so."

My understanding of the Catechism and of the behavior of the other popes of the 20th century (prior to wars) is that we are not to wait for a papal statement "very clearly in favor of ... war." Rather, a pope may choose to give a general exhortation that secular rulers abide by the "just war criteria," but the final decision is in the hands of those secular rulers (who then must live with their decisions and consciences).

Gordon, I was surprised that you replied at all. Then I was very surprised that you replied so ungraciously, even throwing in a little foul language. And I was most surprised to read these (near-to-the-last) words of yours: "Well, time for your response. Continue with your cutdowns ..."
Gordon, you shouldn't have been expecting a further response from me, since I told you last time: "... you are totally out of touch with reality in regards to the Iraq matter, so I am not going to waste time pursuing this with you any further."
I don't know. Maybe you overlooked those words of mine, or maybe you didn't think that I had the will power to abide by my promise. I do have it.

God bless you both.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 06, 2003.

Hi John,

What did the president of the U.S. bishops' Conference, and the Archbishop of the U.S. Military Services. say exactly?

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 06, 2003.

> "even throwing in a little foul language."

I was making a point, and I think it is absurd that a person would actually complain that I am behaving like himself!!!

> "Gordon, you shouldn't have been expecting a further response from me, since I told you last time: "... you are totally out of touch with reality in regards to the Iraq matter, so I am not going to waste time pursuing this with you any further."

Say no more then, but I still stand 100 percent behind what I have said above. You refuse to debate the issue, then others can assume that I am correct, for if I was wrong, you could easily refute what I have said.

Personally I don't think you can handle the debate, as you had to resort to cheap insults.

> "God bless you both."

Considering your insults, this makes no sense to me at all! I will never understand some religious people. If I behaved like you, I would simply stop giving people the impression I am religious. Charity to one's neighbour John! Ponder on that.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

Forget Gordon.

Complete waste of time.

By the way, the first article I found in newsmax.com, recommended here as a “reliable source”, was one slamming both popes John Paul II and Pius XII, with the most false “facts” that we have become accustomed to read (beginning with the incredible lie of Pope Pius being “silent” and never having spoken to defend Jews).

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), April 06, 2003.

Atila, can you please provide a link to that article? I have never read any anti-Catholic article at that site before, and I would be surprised to see that. Please provide a link.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

> "Forget Gordon. Complete waste of time."

Atila? Are you not the same person, who emailed me recently, saying you do not support the war, and even indicated how unhappy you were with a certain someone who supported it? Imposter, or are there two Atila's on this forum?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

John

I found this from Zenit U.S. Conference President Expresses Regrets Over War: Bishop Gregory Calls for Prayer, and Protection of the Innocent

"WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 20, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The president of the U.S. bishops' conference expressed his brother prelates' regrets over the Iraq crisis but hoped for limited damage from the war...."

"...-- Moral concerns: Bishop Gregory noted that the bishops' «moral concerns and questions, as well as the call of the Holy Father to find alternatives to war, are well known and reflect prudential judgments about the application of traditional Catholic teaching on the use of force in this case.»"

"He reaffirmed concern about «the precedents that could be set and the possible consequences of a major war of this type in perhaps the most volatile region of the world.»"

"-- Conscience: Bishop Gregory acknowledged that «war has serious consequences, and so could failure to act» and «that people of good will can and do differ» on these matters."

"He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the vocation of military service, expressing support for «those who have accepted the call to serve their country in a conscientious way in the armed services» and «for those who pursue conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection.»"

I agree that the U.S. Bishop Conference President believes this war to be just and not in opposition to any papal statement.

I'll look into it some more.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 07, 2003.

John

Here's what I found on the other bishop you mentioned:

"WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services said in a March 25 letter to his priests that members of the armed forces should carry out their duties in good conscience because they can presume the integrity of the leaders who decided to go to war in Iraq."...

"In the letter the archbishop said the moral justification for the invasion of Iraq likely will be debated long after the hostilities cease"...

"He said, though he did not want to interfere with what Bishop Botean (Romanian Diocese of St. George in Canton, Ohio) feels he needs to do, "my question is, does he have all the information he needs to make such a conclusion? I don't know if anybody does."

So if I am drafted for combat I can join in and not be considered a murderer. That sounds reasonable.

But there is no statement by either bishop you mentioned that says it is a just war nor one that says it is an unjust war.

(that bold type is not screaming, it's just a final point)

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 07, 2003.

Atila emailed me, and he said that he meant that I should not forget, that discussing this issue with certain people is a complete waste of time.

The article that Atila was referring to: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/4/204757.shtml

Atila, I believe you are misunderstanding that article, as it does say: "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."

That's actually acurate and not a lie, as they never claim, he never spoke out against Hitler, when the Pope did do so on one occasion that I know of. The reason they give for the Pope's silence, is accurate also, and something you almost never hear from a liberal news source.

The tone of that article is quite positive, in showing the Church's argument, which is surprising for a site that is strongly in favor of the war. I think there are a lot of Catholics on staff.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.

Gordon

Whats a "moronic piece of crap"? You posts are very crude!

-- Dennis (Den@msft.com), April 08, 2003.

> "Whats a "moronic piece of crap"? You posts are very crude!"

I already explained that, and I am sorry if I offended anyone. I did not mean those words beyond making a point to John, that we should not respond with insulting remarks. Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I don't speak that way to people, and was letting John know, I did not appreciate the way he was speaking to me.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Three cheers for John!!!

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

> "Three cheers for John!!!"

This thread sure is getting ridiculous.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

Ridiculous, eh? Okay fine, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose, no matter how wrong you may be, lol...

Three cheers for John = excellent reasoning and points well made John.

RAH, RAH, RAH (that's three more if you're counting, for a total of six)

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 09, 2003.

Emerald, let's take a quick look at the LOTR shall we?

God in that alternative universe, or ERU, "the One", created the world through the ministry of angels or the Vala.

That's the way he works. He is the first to use subsidiarity! He delegates his power to others.

Ditto with our Christian economy of salvation. Christ came, preached the good news, selected MEN, gave them his message and authority and mission, and sent them on their way to convert the world. He would be with THEM. He would build up the kingdom through their efforts, and ours....

So while the Wise in LOTR did not trust armies to win their war, they did trust creatures - who would be graced by God in their quest. They didn't sit still in the Last Havens or Rivendell and pray for a miracle. Instead they put their faith into action and tried their best, using their heads, using their wit, using their might...trusting that God and other forces of good would contribute their part in the symphony of the triumph of goodness over evil.

I suspect you have fallen into the trap of Denethor or Saruman - seeing the very real might of the powers of Mordor and counting only the good forces you see immediately on hand - which are admittedly few. Yet many powers of good exist in this world which the wise do not always count on... hobbits, ents, rangers, etc...

In our world I see the movements, the new congregations, mystics and holy parents... I see tremendous evil in the US, but also a real rising swell of a counter-culture... no one beats a dead horse Emerald. If the Left and pro-sexual promiscuity crowd are so in-your- face as they are, it must mean that there are plenty of decent people still around to be scandalized...

God will triumph. But until he comes in glory, he will triumph through his Church, and that means we have to be brave, "be not afraid" as the Pope urges, and get to work like Samwise...

It's the hardest thing of all, going forward, seemingly alone with the weight of the ring (concupiscence) around our necks... on a self- less quest to destroy it, to reject it especially when it is most powerful... but it is the truest act of faith, hope, and love.

Maybe this is why Our Lord never said anything negative about soliders.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

There's a lot of truth in what you say.

The loud music never would have allowed for a good conversation, but I believe that if we were to sit down and hash this out there would be a lot of areas of agreement.

However, there would probably be areas of holdout too; I can sense that immediately.

It is not the principle that is in question, so much as the practical application of it. The question would be, imho, is... is this or that action, strategy, means, etc. a genuine carry-through of the principle of acting in the name of God or is it a true manifestation of carrying out his will, or however you want to express it.

The question I would be most interested in, in summary, is whether this or that action on the part of men is flowing from the principle of, subsidiary. Let's call it subsidiary like you did, because I can't think of a better word. Or are the plans and schemes in any way deviant. Such as ulterior, for instance.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Just for fun, Joe, because I don't know if you've seen it but I put this site up a while back. It still isn't rounded out yet and I haven't touched it in a while, but it's there if you have some time to kill. It's all written up in traditionalist slant for which I make no apologies; it is what it is.

You have to understand that what I wrote there is based upon viewing the films and nothing more. I'm still under an obligation to Isabel to actually read the books, and I haven't paid up on that commitment yet. Typical.

But one scene I thought was particularly striking in the extended version of the first film was this place where the elves lived, like this mound of trees under which the city and their existence was hidden. And all their weapons were ranged instruments. I just found it intriguing.

In my perception, the great actions are hidden, the great voices are silent or barely audible, the greatest of men are to all appearances not recognizable as such, not known... the greatest battles are fought in secret. The true forces at work in the world for good imho come to the forefront as surprises, not as the obvious or even the predictable.

They do, however, come about through immutable principle.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 10, 2003.

Joe and Emerald,

I liked your posts. God's justice is worked out on battle fields sometimes. Even without papal approvals. This may be one such case.

I sypathize with Emerald's the great actions are hidden idea too. Emerald you are probably a person who doesn't mind some extra solitude and are sort of..well quiet or hidden-ish. Anyway, that's how I tend to be, and I know that too much of that can lead to isolation and lack of needed human supports in life. Sometimes we need to rely on the outgoing types to save the day. I do anyway, but I often refuse them a place in my life, to my loss sometimes.

We know God prefers peace. That's why he wouldn't let King David build him a temple. There were too many battles during King David's reign. So his son Solomon got that honor. Never mind that Solomon may have been ultimately someone who's actions were worse in God's eyes than David's were.

I believe the Levite priests were first installed under Moses after they slew the Isrealites who were somehow key figures in the golden calf incident. Don't know the details there, but there are biblical men who were honored for their violent means of justice.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 10, 2003.

Who claims that no man is an island; while I land up in jeopardy, more distant from you by degrees. I walk this shore in isolation... and at my feet eternity draws ever sweeter plans for me.

lol! I guess that's pretty much true Mike, yet I have my family here without which I would have no center or equilibrium. I'm too strange to be anything but a soloist, and I know I will never understand what makes everyone else tick.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 11, 2003.

Emerald,

Great postings on this thread ! Keep up the good work.

Peace & Prayers

-- Xavier (crusaders_warship@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

Our Lord has been referred to as "the Lord of Hosts" - and the definition of a "host" is not primarily that little white wafer of bread used for the Eucharist... but an Army.

Now since humanity has had armies for a long time, there are many different terms for them.

Host Corp Legion Army Division Cohort

When our Lord confronted the "cohort" (roughly 600 men) in the garden and backed them down with a commanding presence when he said "I am"... he also told Peter that "14 legions of angels" were available to him should he call on them.

Now history tells us that Titus had approximately 12-14 Legions when he took Jerusalem in 70 AD...but I digress.

Our Lord respected soldiers. So did St Paul. In Revelation, Jesus Christ comes in his glory with the Heavenly Hosts... and the small detail of mentioning that "the gates of hell will not prevail against you" indicate that the Church, as the seed of the Kingdom is very militant: after all, "gates" are NOT offensive weapons.

We are not defending our gates, we are taking down someone else's gates! (or at least, we should be.)

Because it is "better to give than to receive", offense is better than defense.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

Joe

Thanks for the scriptural insights. I looked up Host in Webster myself...Army, never knew that, so cool, I always think of the unleavened bread when I read "Host" in scripture and then keep reading, figuring if it's unclear, I'm too impatient or too dense to get it all anyway.

The Legion of Mary is very Army-ish too.

The "Church Militant" would not be used as a descriptive term for the Church on earth if literal military action did not have a holy and proper place in God's plan for us. Similarly, we call God our Father and we understand that term because our earthly individual fathers have an important and holy role with us.

>:-)

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 11, 2003.

> "Now history tells us that Titus had approximately 12-14 Legions when he took Jerusalem in 70 AD"

It was 3 legions. Three legions was considered a huge Roman Army. I doubt the Romans ever in their history fielded 12 to 14 Legions in a single battle.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

> "The Legion of Mary is very Army-ish too."

The discipline of the Roman Legions, is it's inspiration. We are Mary's army doing battle against Satan.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, gentlemen. Please excuse me for not having replied sooner. I have been away from this thread for a week or more.

Mike H, I'm glad that you were able, in my absence, to find the statements made by the bishops to whom I referred.
Your closing comment, though -- the one you put in bold type -- was: "But there is no statement by either bishop you mentioned that says it is a just war nor one that says it is an unjust war."
I could be misunderstading your motive for making this statement, Mike, but it seems to be a way of claiming that I was wrong in an earlier post. If that was your intent [and the opening word, "But," hints that it was], I would ask you to scroll up to see what I actually wrote (on April 5) about those bishops' statements. You'll see that I did not say that they referred to the war as just or unjust. I mentioned their statements for a different reason.

Gordon, in response to Joe S's comment about Titus having twelve legions at the destruction of Jerusalem, you stated: "It was 3 legions. Three legions was considered a huge Roman Army. I doubt the Romans ever in their history fielded 12 to 14 Legions in a single battle."

Actually Titus had four legions at Jerusalem (probably 24,000 men at that time). [See this for details.] As to the number of legions who ever fought together ... I cannot dispute your statement, but the concept is not unthinkable. The number of men in a legion gradually grew from 3,000 to 6,000 during Rome's history. It is possible that 36,000 men (twelve legions -- 3,000 in each) did fight together at some time in Rome's long history. [PS to GV: Your experience, above, with a certain person's misjudgment of the newsmax.com article should help you to be aware of his unfortunate unreliability on a variety of subjects.]

Thank you, Dennis and Bob M, for your supportive and amusing comments!

God bless you.
John

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

HI everyone.

Actually, John and Gordon, you're both wrong - but I understand where the confusion can come from. Sometimes Legion = a number, and other times it refers to an organized army of varying size.

The eyewitness to the events was the historian Josephus, who wrote in his classic tome that the Romans had a force of some 60,000 soldiers not counting auxiliaries and logistical support. A Roman Legion typically (key word "typically") numbered between 5,000 and 6,000 men. Thus there would have been between 10 and 12 Legion's worth of Romans, more if you count all their assistants, engineers, heardsmen, etc.

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volu me_I/templejer_cg.html

Later historical research has shown that there were "officially" 4 Legions present in the seige: the 10th, 12th, 14th and 15th Legions.

However, the total number of fighting men and auxiliaries numbered (for the historians' calculations) some 80,000. Thus we're looking at 14+ Legions worth of men.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/18-ad70.html

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.