Is it possible the Pope was right???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

BUSH RECEIVES MESSAGE FROM POPE

Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON - MARCH 5, 2003 - A VATICAN ENVOY WEDNESDAY CARRIED THE POPE'S MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE THAT A U.S. LED WAR AGAINST IRAQ WITHOUT UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL WOULD BE "UNJUST AND ILLEGAL."

PLEADING FOR PEACE, CARDINAL PIO LAGHI, AN EMISSARY FROM POPE JOHN PAUL II, QUESTIONED PRESIDENT BUSH ON WHETHER HE WAS DOING ALL HE COULD TO AVERT WHAT THE ENVOY CALLED AN "UNJUST" WAR WITH IRAQ. LAGHI CAME BEARING THE POPE'S MESSAGE: A WAR WOULD BE A DEFEAT FOR HUMANITY AND WOULD BE NEITHER MORALLY NOR LEGALLY JUSTIFIED.

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE POPE OVER IRAQ POSES AN ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT POLITICAL QUANDARY FOR BUSH, WHO HAS AGGRESSIVELY SOUGHT TO WOO TRADITIONALLY DEMOCRATIC CATHOLIC VOTERS TO THE REPUBLICAN FOLD. THE MEETING WEDNESDAY DID NOT APPEAR TO BRIDGE THE GAP.

WHILE BUSH HAS SIGNALED THAT HE IS PREPARED TO CONFRONT SADDAM HUSSEIN EVEN WITHOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, LAGHI SAID THAT THE VATICAN BELIEVES A JUST WAR CAN BE WAGED ONLY WITH THE UNITED NATIONS' ENDORSEMENT. LAGHI SAID BEFORE GOING TO WAR THE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT "THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ARMED CONFLICT: THE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND THOSE INVOLVED IN THE MILITARY OPERATION, A FURTHER INSTABILITY IN THE REGION AND A NEW GULF BETWEEN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY." HE SAID THAT ANY WAR WITHOUT U.N. APPROVAL "IS ILLEGAL, IT IS UNJUST."

LAGHI, ADDRESSING REPORTERS AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, SAID THAT ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR VISITORS TO FIELD MEDIA QUESTIONS IN THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE WEST WING AFTER THEY MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE GROWING TENSION WITH THE VATICAN COULD UNDERCUT BUSH'S EFFORTS TO COURT CATHOLIC VOTERS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We say we are going to war with Iraq to enforce that country’s non-compliance with a resolution of the United Nations. But the UN, whose resolution we are using to justify the action, refuses to ratify that action. "Where’s the credibility in that?" ~ GOP Consultant Lon Edwards

-- Paul Krieg (Harmony@5starmail.com), April 12, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), April 12, 2004.

You mean people are actually gullable enough to listen to what the Pope says?

WOW and hahaha!!!!

-- Fred Phelps (bane_of_religion@jack_chick.com), April 12, 2004.


Liberals quote the Pope when it suites their purposes, then they return to condeming him when he talks about faith and morals. By the way, no one knows what was in the letter, not even the Houston Chronicle.

If what the pope said was that we had to go in with the UN, well, we know now that the UN was skimming off millions from the Oil for Food program, so I guess they would not be in favor of getting rid of Saddam any more than the French and Russians who were also being paid off, we know now, by Saddam. So if the Pope said what the Houston Chronicle said he said, I guess he was wrong.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


Bill, Another great comeback. As always, you are 100% right. The Pope is wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. Some of these posters are so hypocritical. Sheeesh!

Keep up the good work.

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.


The Pope knows more about the world, especially the mideast, than the texas primitive and his neocon war band. Recent events have proved that the yanks are prisoners of their culture, unable and incapable of grasping the ancient culture and complex divisions of the arab world. Not many of the soldiers have a rudimentary knowledge of arabic let alone the culture. Recent events have proved that brute force is no solution to the complex problems of Iraq.

-- Lucio del Mundo (banque@yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.


Lucio, Only a liberal would post such heresy. Bill is right, the Pope is wrong. Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a smashing success. We are being greeted as liberators. Furthermore, we had no choice but to invade Iraq because Saddam masterminded the 911 attacks and Iraq was a hotbed of Al Qaeda before we got there and chased them off or killed them. The Iraqi's love us. The biased liberal media is not presenting a clear picture of the war, they are not showing all the good things happening in Iraq (i.e. Fed Ex delivering free toys). Please get with the dogma, Lucio, or go to some leftist website to expound your ultra liberal views.

In Christ,

Tom

-- Tom (TMarcotte@Yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.


i really dont think this has much to do about respect for the arab culture. how is that important, anyway, lucio? like it or not, anglo culture moves the world forward. our openess allows collaborations and contributions from people of many backgrounds in the fields of medicine, space research, etc. dont tell me how wonderfully advanced the arab culture was centuries ago. because they really are a joke, dont you think. all but two, maybe 3 mid-east countries are willing members of teh community of nations. the others are wallowing in the misery of oppressive religion and archaic beliefs.

thank the LORD for the united states. without this invasion, iraq would have still pursued illegal weapons, and would undoubtedly cause more fear and panic in the decades to come.

-- jas (lucioisanass@yahoo.com), April 12, 2004.


It is just possible that the pope was not privy to the information that Bush had. After all, the Vatican really doesn't have a spy agency, and Bush had access of intelligence from about 30 countries’ agencies. Then again, maybe neither Bush nor the pope knew about all the bribery and embezzling that was going on that would cause the UN, France and Russia to hold out for the prolonging of the oil for food program, and for keeping Saddam in power. I’ll leave it up to the historians to figure it out.

As for leaving now, I will repeat what Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the UK just said, in his recent piece, Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set back in bitter disappointment. If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can. Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half- hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric, Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence. He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation. …

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


link is:

Why we must never abandon this historic struggle in Iraq

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


There you have it, Lucio, in a NUTshell. And please refrain from posting your liberal tripe on this Catholic website. Now repeat after me: THE POPE IS WRONG, HE IS OLD, HE IS OUT OF THE LOOP.

In Christ,

Tom

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@Yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.



Lucio, One more thing--- As Bill said, the Pope was not privy to the information Bush had. He did not understand that Iraq had WMD that were a grave and imminent threat to western civilization. We got there just in the nick of time. The Pope did not understand the urgency. The man is clueless. He was wrong. Bill is right. Got that, Lucio?

In Christ,

Tom

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.


Tom, Your not fooling anyone with your posts.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


Bill, That's pretty lame. Where's your spunk?

In Christ,

Tom

P.S. - I'm not attempting to fool anyone.

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@Yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.


Satire is an art, but after one or two goes, it really gets old. That is why I don't think Al Franken should of named his show the O'Franken Factor. The joke can only be used a few times, then it is gone, and you are left with a bad taste in your mouth. Not a good name for a show, Franken is too smart (I thought) for that. But then 'Air America' is another pun, that will probably last as a name because most people don't get it.

take care, -bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), April 12, 2004.


Bill, If you and/or your alter egos are left with a bad taste in your mouth, that's too bad. I'm sure some of your more inane musings have left others with heartburn, acid indigestion and other digestive maladies too indelicate to mention here. So I will continue to exercise my freedom of speech and you can continue to get used to it. Worse case scenario: you could try ignoring me. I wouldn't cry too much. Honest :>)

In Christ,

Tom

P.S. Have you thought of complaining to the moderator. . . ?

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@Yahoomail.com), April 12, 2004.



Tom,

Your satire is dead-on. Your posts on this thread are some of the best ever. The way you exposed Bill's disobedience to the Holy Father was ingenious. After all, everyone knows that all wars are unjust and that Pope John Paul II told all faithful catholics that to believe the war in Iraq is a just war would be a mortal sin. And everyone knows that the CIA is lying about Mohammed Atta meeting with Saddam's men in Iraq before the 9-11 attack, because that's what the CIA does (they hand out crack in the ghetto too don't you know). And even though Saddam had used WMD on the Kurds, and Clinton, and practically every nation on earth believed Iraq possessed them doesn't mean that they existed. Thanks for highlighting some some of Bill's "inane musings." The next time he posts another anti-social justice article, instead of popping some more Tums, I am going to complain to the moderator. Thanks for the idea. :)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 13, 2004.


(in support of bill) bill nelson has consistently claimed over the months that the pope is infallible on theological matters, but NOT w/ politics and the like.

you didnt "expose" anything. if you learned to think and process information critically, you would see that, tom.

-- jas (whatever@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.


I never thought there would be time when catholics would say that the pope is wrong, when it comes to their particular politics and things. I always thought catholics were beyond politics. I always thought that they knew that the holy man of God was full of God's grace and wisdom, that he lives to bring peace and love to the whole world. Unfortunately I was wrong. It seems like politics is above everything. This is sad.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.

Abraham, The pope can be wrong about things not having to do with faith and morals. He is a bishop and a man. Our current pope is a very holy man, but he is not 'all knowing'.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.


Brian said, "After all, everyone knows that all wars are unjust "

No, Brian, not all wars are unjst. To quote the Catholic Catechism:

2309 However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

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

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."

see: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2309

I hope I didn't upset your stomach too much.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.


Bill,

Did you really believe me when I said all wars are unjust? I was defending you by being sarcastic to Tom. Everything I said was tongue in cheek; just as Tom was being a smart aleck to you; sorry that didn't come through. I probably enjoy your posts more than anyone on the forum.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 13, 2004.


Sorry, too much sarcasm on this thread... I can't keep up.... oh well, back to work...

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

thanks for the compliment!

-- bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 13, 2004.

Does anyone actually have a text from the Pope (provided by vatican.va) to argue about or are we all going to go in circles arguing about what the Media said He said, putting words in his mouth and quoting two words out of context?

Once you have the actual text of the letter, you then need to see what the argument of the letter is based on. If it's based on a matter of principle, then what is the principle? I have searched high and low for the principled argument, the syllogism, outlining why from Catholic traditional Just war theory, the scriptures, and Magisterial documents, the Pope concluded what he seems to have concluded. But all I have found is assertions that X is Y without any attempt, anywhere, L'Osservatore Romano, vatican.va, etc. to actually make the case a principled one... I'm claiming they didn't. I just haven't found it.

So...what are you peace-niks (which is a misnomer since the status quo ante resulted in MORE deaths per capita per year than have died since the war) basing your "principled argument" on?

If the argument is based on a question of prudence - then the whole argument hinges on how much the Pope knows about all the particulars of the question.

For example: if the Pope supposed that the US/UK would employ WWII type tactics (carpet bombing, indiscriminate artillery barrages, "moving wall of fire" front lines, etc.) then of course, "war would be a defeat for humanity". But in actuality, the tactics used were the exact opposite of "indiscriminate" - so the moral calculus MUST CHANGE.

If the Pope supposed that an invasion would start Armageddon, World War 3, then of course, it would be immoral. But it didn't. Again, the moral calculus has to change.

Moral judgements - especially about which course of action is best, depends in large degree on information and accuracy. If your A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS are off, then your conclusions are going to be off as well.

As it stands, we now now - without a shread of doubt - that the UN "food for oil" program was corrupt, that the Baath regime was NOT "in a box" but was actively engaged in illegal trade with half a dozen nations (all on the UN Security Council), that over 250 organizations and people (including many so-called peace-niks) were on the Baath payroll, and had on-going illegal weapons programs, especially long range missiles. "The long pole in the tent" as Dr Kay mentioned. While actual WMD stock piles haven't been discovered, the means to produce them WERE DISCOVERED.

Thus far, all the dire predictions of anti-war people have failed to materialize, and all their assurances about the UN status quo have been proven false, yet they continue to argue about the moral status of the war as though this information doesn't exist! Amazing!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 13, 2004.


"I was defending you by being sarcastic to Tom. Everything I said was tongue in cheek; just as Tom was being a smart aleck to you; sorry that didn't come through."

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahaha!

In Christ,

Tom

-- Tom (TMarcotte2000@yahoomail.com), April 13, 2004.


Its sad to see people bend their faith to suit their politics. Hypocrisy reigns.

-- classified (catholic@heavens.gate), April 13, 2004.

Please show us right here Mr Classified, where the Catholic FAITH states unequivocally that liberating Iraq is always and everywhere immoral?

That is, where does the Pope and Magisterium come down categorically, on principle, stating that liberating a nation from a tyrant is always and in every case illegal and immoral, "de principi"?

This is not a question like abortion - which is evil always and in every case. This a question about prudential decisions and who makes the final call, and based on what reason.

The only people bending their faith to their politics was the LEFT and so-called peace-niks who don't give a whit about "peace" only about protecting tyrants and dictators. When was the last time any peace-and-justice [sic] crowd ever gathered to protest the actions of a dictatorship? They only gather to protest the actions of democracy!

How many of these same people, outraged about "war" gather in the Pro- life movement to deplore the war on the unborn? Few and far between.

How many of these anti-US/pro-Saddam's Iraq people obey categorical Catholic condemnation of abortion, contraception, and homosexual sex?

None of the above teaching is about prudential decisions but categorically principled moral ones. But war or peace and diplomacy have always been in the realm of prudential decisions.

If you don't think so, where are your texts from Catholic doctrine proving your belief?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 14, 2004.


Does anyone actually have a text from the Pope (provided by vatican.va) to argue about or are we all going to go in circles arguing about what the Media said He said, putting words in his mouth and quoting two words out of context?

No. It was a private letter from the Pope to the President, and it was kept private.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospan@hotmail.com), April 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ