What's the difference? JPII just not clear enough...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Pius XII said, "If you want peace, you must work for justice." Also, John Paul II hailed those who fought for freedom at D-Day and recognized the merit of those who battled for the freedom of nations. There numerous accounts of Popes and Church leaders condoning just wars in cases that it liberates a people or works for justice.

However, John Paul II doesn't agree with this war in Iraq. Why?

There is plenty of evidence documenting terrorist camps lead by Zarqawi in northern Iraq, before AND after Sept 11, and other terrorists given medical help and funds in Baghdad in the late 90's and up untill Sept 11. Al Franken and Bill Maher have even spoken about and agreed with this evidence on their respective radio and television shows. Most surprising, John Kerry, knew about this evidence and voted for the war! Now he's against it. Also, it goes without saying how brutal and maniacal Saddam Hussein was, how he tortured and killed his people by the thousands, never allowed free elections and killed anybody who expressed a desire for a change in government.

After all this, why does John Paul II speak so strongly against this war and President Bush?

-- John Dern (johndern@yahoo.com), June 07, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment

-- (bump@bump.bump), June 07, 2004.

The pope felt that there was still time to work with the UN. It was a difference of opinion. He was not privy to the intelligence the President had and did not see such an immanent threat. He felt a few more months or a year of negotiations to avoid a large battle would be worth the effort without the risk to the US population. The President disagreed. There is also some evidence that there were people in the pay of Saddam within the Vatican to make sure the Pope thought this way (how successful they were is debatable). I will leave the historians to figure all of this out in 20-50 years.

The Catholic Catechism leaves the decision of the protection of the US population up to the civil leaders of the US (the President and Congress).

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


"There is also some evidence that there were people in the pay of Saddam within the Vatican to make sure the Pope thought this way." (Bill)

Bill I am shocked at you. I thought you were too smart to fall for bigoted anti-Catholic calumnies like this. Where is your loyalty to the Holy Father?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.


Bill I am shocked at you. I thought you were too smart to fall for bigoted anti-Catholic calumnies like this. Where is your loyalty to the Holy Father?

They are on the same lists the UN folks are on who were bribed. Again, the historians will figure it all out, I am sure.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


I suppose they will, Bill, but that’s no reason to give any credence to such a blatantly sectarian accusation.

“Pius XII said, "If you want peace, you must work for justice." Also, John Paul II hailed those who fought for freedom at D-Day and recognized the merit of those who battled for the freedom of nations. There numerous accounts of Popes and Church leaders condoning just wars in cases that it liberates a people or works for justice.” (John)

“Work for justice” certainly does not mean “you can wage war if your aim is to deliver justice”. “Hailing” and “recognizing the merit of those who battled for freedom” is NOT the same as saying that the war they fought in was just. It was not. Our first duty re war is always to do everything possible to prevent it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.



I suppose they will, Bill, but that’s no reason to give any credence to such a blatantly sectarian accusation.

What are you talking about? They were on pay out sheets that our souldiers found in Iraq. Sorry they were being bribed, but they were. What came of it, I don't know. There were UN officials and even Al Jazzera newspeople on those lists. Saddam had a lot of people on his payroll. He treated this as a war, which it is. We aren't playing games here.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


Bill, did it occur to you that these "pay out sheets that our souldiers found" may be forgeries intended to discredit the Church? Such things have been done many times before by the Church's enemies.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

Steve, Saddam did not consider the Pope his enemy. He thought he had an 'in' at the Vatican via his Secretary of State. The Vatican was allied at the time with France and Germany trying to get the US to stay playing around with the UN. I agree people over the years have tried to implicate the Church in all kinds of things where She has been innocent of wrong doing. And maybe the Vatican was innocent in this case as well, but it sure looks like a few people in the Vatican were being bribed by Saddam to pressure the Pope into certain political stands.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.


Bill, I don’t think Saddam is the only one who can forge a document. There are plenty of enemies of the Church, Iraqi, American or whatever, who would see an advantage in implicating the Holy See in corruption. And I think we’ve learnt enough about this Pope to know that it's very unlikely he could be pressured into any political stand, even in his debilitated state.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.

Steve wrote----“Work for justice” certainly does not mean “you can wage war if your aim is to deliver justice”. “Hailing” and “recognizing the merit of those who battled for freedom” is NOT the same as saying that the war they fought in was just. It was not.

Why not?

Steve wrote----"Our first duty re war is always to do everything possible to prevent it."

Exactly

-- John Dern (johndern@yahoo.com), June 08, 2004.



John,

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 7, 2004 (Zenit.org).- In a letter, John Paul II hailed the "great merits" of those who fought for freedom 60 years ago in the invasion of Normandy and stressed the need to learn from history.

The letter, signed at the Pope's request by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, was addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, dean of the College of Cardinals, who attended the commemoration with heads of state that took place Sunday in France.

Vatican Radio revealed some parts of the letter and said the Holy Father mentioned the merits of those "who battled for the freedom of nations."

The memory of "so many victims" and so much "suffering" caused by "the tragic world conflict," must lead men of good will, together with leaders of nations and representatives of civil and military associations, to journey on "paths of peace," the letter said.

To achieve this, the letter said, it is necessary to foster in hearts "sentiments of forgiveness, fraternity and solidarity" in order to construct a social life based "on moral and spiritual values."

Clearly, the fact that the war was unjust does not mean that everyone who fought in it did so in bad conscience.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.


All,

the Pope is considered the world's spiritual leader. If the US listen to the Pope's suggestion and somehow there is a resolution without a war, the Pope's status will even raised higher. He will become an important figure in dealing with conflict between nations.

The Pope spoke against the war on Iraq because he was taken out of the picture. If the Pope continue to involve in building world peace and just, he will become more and more popular and eventually will have political power. The Catholic is coming back to be a political and religious church again.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 08, 2004.


Steve said, "Bill, I don’t think Saddam is the only one who can forge a document."

agreed

"There are plenty of enemies of the Church, Iraqi, American or whatever, who would see an advantage in implicating the Holy See in corruption. And I think we’ve learnt enough about this Pope to know that it's very unlikely he could be pressured into any political stand, even in his debilitated state."

I don't think the Pope had anything to do with corruption, however we know people within the Vatican can be and have been corrupted over the ages and in the not so distant past. We also know there are some friends of Saddam's Baathists (Jean Marie Benjamin discribes himself as a friend of Tariq Aziz) that were in the Vatican and arranged for Tariq Aziz to have a meeting with the Pope, Vatican officials and to visit Catholic shrines in Italy just before the invasion.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.


The Pope spoke against the war. Wars are bad, period.

But,it is not the duty of all Catholics to agree with the Pope on all issues.

A good Catholic can disagree with the Pope (unless of course, he is speaking ex cathedra).

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 08, 2004.


Henri's wacky conspiracy theory is not worth a reply.

Bill, I already said the Pope himself would not be corrupted. But you did say “there were people in the pay of Saddam within the Vatican to make sure the Pope thought this way” – I presume you’re implying they aimed to pressure the Pope to take a pro-Iraqi stand.

Surely you’re not suggesting that just because Saddam was a tyrant, the Pope should have refused to meet with his foreign minister, especially at a time when it could have prevented a terrible war. I’m sure the Pope was aware of the contacts between Aziz and people like Benjamin. The church has very often been able to exert a good influence on bad governments, especially by cultivating friendships with Catholics within those governments. The Pope himself is a veteran of using this technique with the Communist government of Poland.

Yes John, it is technically true that “A good Catholic can disagree with the Pope (unless of course, he is speaking ex cathedra).” Unfortunately many Catholics including several in this forum, take this as a license to ignore and even militantly oppose and vilify anything the Pope says which is not a formal ex cathedra statement. Christ has placed the pope and bishops as our pastors and leaders and we owe them a duty of obedience whenever they speak on moral and doctrinal issues. If we find we cannot in conscience agree we should still avoid condemning the Pope’s position, to avoid creating scandal among our fellow Catholics and the world at large.

I wonder what excuse this type of dissident Catholic used to use before the infallibility of ex cathedra statements was formally defined in 1870?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.



many Catholics including several in this forum, take this as a license to ignore and even militantly oppose and vilify anything the Pope says which is not a formal ex cathedra statement

This is a blatant exagerration or outright lie. Back it up.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 08, 2004.


You can’t be serious Brian; you must be living in an enclosed monastery if you’ve never encountered “cafeteria Catholics” like this. Even among recent posts in this very forum, such as in “Iraq and just war revisited”, “Is the Vatican anti-American?”, “Pope scolds, Bush squirms” and even in this thread. And please don't call me a liar.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.

Brian, Steve is giving you his personal opinion. While you are certainly entitled to call him on it and demand proof for his assertion, please don't label his comment as "lying". It serves no constructive purpose. Steve could be misinformed and not intentionally attempting to mislead anyone, or, on the other hand, he could be correct. Either way, attempting to categorize his statement as a lie has no place here.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 09, 2004.


many Catholics including several in this forum, take this as a license to ignore and even militantly oppose and vilify anything the Pope says which is not a formal ex cathedra statement

If your talking about me, Steve, your absolutley incorrect. I don't ignore or even militantly oppose or vilify anything the Pope says. I may not agree with some things he says which do not fall under his magistarial authority, but then, as a Catholic, I have the right to disagree with the Holy Father at times on political issues. I try to do so politely. I certainly don't vilify the Holy Father. So I take personal exception to what you wrote here.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.


Steve, I don't know if you include me in your sweeping statement about those who disagree with the Pope...but I for one don't think he has no authority. I just understand what Catholics have always understood: there is a huge and qualitative difference between a difference of opinion on contingent things (such as the best way to apply a principle) and rejection of authoritative "de fide" teachings on faith and morals.

I also have posted repeatedly that I appreciate the Pope's views - and agree that he should NOT come out in favor of war or in favor of the USA as it

Liberals will reject in toto the Pope's moral authority in all matters sexual. They also reject his moral authority when it comes to discipline ("Ex corde Ecclesiae" anyone?) and life issues. Many of them believe outright heresy with respect to theology and ecclesiology. Most of the peace-nik crowd don't even care about peace! Witness their profound SILENCE with respect to real bloodbaths occuring in Africa and Asia... SILENCE with respect to real ongoing conflict in Latin America and massive human rights abuse in North Korea. That they should claim to "be more obedient to the pope" on Iraq takes a lot of chutzpah.

My only, sole, disagreement is over prudence. It was a prudential decision of Bush's to declare war sooner rather than wait until the cows come home. Neither the CCC nor Catholic just war theory, nor the statements of the Popes including JPII taught ON PRINCIPLE that duly elected heads of state whose country have been attacked and who have no "higher international forum" to turn to for help, can't make THE CALL as to when armed response is appropriate.

Alot of ink has been spilled about "last resport" - without looking at the crucial detail of who exactly is endowed with the authority to judge when such a state has been reached. Bush didn't launch the invasion in 2002... he worked through the UN, got unanimous approval for resolution 1441, gave Saddam ample time to prove the mind- bogglingly simple job of: when the WMDs were destroy, by whom, where, and how. The UN inspectors where not sent in as detectives but as public notaries! Now, of course, you can quibble all you want about whether the UN security council has the last word... but the sheer fact that half of the permanent members of this august body (France, Russia, China) had business deals and were owed billions by Saddam surely means they were not impartial judges. And besides, none of them have any interest in protecting America from terrorism - indeed all have long standing animosity towards us.

Thus, OUT OF PRUDENCE, you don't place your nation's well being in the hands of those who don't care about your safty and in nations who wouldn't lift a finger to help if they wanted to.

The pope and cardinals and every other armchair quarterback of course have rights to their opinion on how much diplomacy is enough or what alternative courses of action are open...but since they are not the ones vested with direct responsibility for the common good threatened, they're NOT THE ONES WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CALL.

That's it. And making the call hinges on questions of FACT, not presumption or a priori thinking. Most of the people who spoke against war were basing their arguments not on questions of principle but on questions of presumed CONSEQUENCES: use of indiscriminate force, millions of refugees, environmental disaster, devastated cities, etc. etc. And I agree: for the sake of the argument, if the US knew that that outcome was likely, it WOULD have been immoral to launch an invasion. But that's my point. The US Military knew that they weren't going to create such havoc. And had the terrorists not fought back, the Iraqi people wouldn't have had to suffer these past several months!

Bush laid out his moral argument over 10 months, and while people are free to disagree, they should at least have the decency to actually respond to his arguments and not just blather on about it being "wrong" as if the assertion of wrongness proves it so!

Nowhere in the ramp up to the war did the USA declare that moral law had no place in warfare. Nowhere did the armed forces declare themselves exempt from international agreements about the use of force...indeed the officer corps of the USA have more specific intellectual formation in classic Catholic just war ethics than Catholic theologians do!

So again and again I and others have pointed this out and are called "cafeteria catholics"? I'm not picking and choosing which Catholic teaching to accept. I am applying the principles of Catholic just war teaching, the principles of common moral discourse and judgment (intention, act and circumstances) and the place of prudence in decisions over contingent matter in a way that is open to discussion and disagreement.

I agree that the Pope could not IN PRUDENCE approve of the war because that would play into Osama Bin Laden's description and rabble- rousing that this is a crusade. He could not PRUDENTLY do so also because of the dire situation of millions of Catholics in Muslim countries who would be threatened by a clash of civilizations or religions. Injecting the Catholic Church into the conflict by "taking sides" would only have made things WORSE, and thus, from a prudential point of view, the Pope HAD to do what he did.

Likewise, if you are ever going to rid the world of terrorism, you have to go to the swamp where they fester, drain it, and fundamentally change the political and economic situation - i.e. overthrow the dictatorships and install constitutional democracies with open markets and social freedoms. This can't be accomplished through tea parties and diplomacy when the nation in question has no freedom of speech (and thus no independent people who can pressure their regime for change!)

You know, on this topic, you have to put yourself in Bush's shoes - a political leader of a huge nation, and then in the Pope's shoes - a spiritual leader of a huge Church. Both have personal, direct responsibility for their constituents' safety. One can't afford to "forgive" people who froth at the mouth declaring Jihad against his fellow countrymen and prove their lethal intent repeatedly. The other has no choice but to repeatedly forgive and forget insults and attacks.

To suggest that the USA's foreign policy should match that the Holy See is to not understand the absolute difference between the two and the difference this makes. The USA has been repeatedly attacked by Muslim extremists. It responds in a multitude of ways, including armed intervention. Currently we have fundamentally changed the situation in Iraq...for the better.

If you disagree, then you need to show proof, not attitude or feelings.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 09, 2004.


Steve,

I did not say you were definitely lying. I said your words were a blatant exaggeration OR outright lie. I hope it's not the latter. There are cafeterial catholics of course. But how can you honestly say that many here in this forum ignore or even militarily oppose or vilify anything the pope says which is not ex cathedra? This is preposterous. There are "many" here who disagree with the Pope about the Iraq War, which is their right BTW, but you can't extend this to say these "many" ignore, militarily oppose, vilify anything the Pope says. As I said, back it up. If you can, I will stand corrected.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 09, 2004.


well the CCC says: "The evaluation of these conditions [ie for a just war] for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

and Joe says that ".... since they are not the ones vested with direct responsibility for the common good threatened, they're NOT THE ONES WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CALL."

that's all very well but what of Vincente Fox send his troops over the border tomorrow because he believes that it is just?

is everyone denied an opinion -- and, moreover, the ability to be correct.

will you believe the Pope in that event when he condemns it as unjust?!?!

i think that "cafeteria Catholic" is probably best reserved for other types of Catholic sloucher. but i do see the point: there's enough mud slung at the protestants and the trads around here, because they do not respect the judgement of the Holy Father. but its OK for non-protestant, non-trads?

in practice, Pres Bush most likely gave as much info to the Pope as he could - because he needed all the support he could get. in this light, an argument that the Pope did not have enough information backfires. in truth, he most likely had all the information but decided that the war was unjust. he has, thusfar, been proved right. where exactly are those WMD's we heard so much about?

if this was about freeing a country from a tyrant -- there would be much bigger fish to fry. starting, i you must do it in the Middle East, with Saudi and its tyrannical regime. Iran? Syria? Yemen?

and China, Zimbabwe, .....

but we were told all along that this was about WMD's .... well, where are they?

where are those "weapons of mass destruction" that would destroy us all?

so far, the Pope made the right call. even if he didn't, Catholics need to be very careful not to show disrespect. we are not just bound to accept statements made ex cathedra. there is a lot more to it than that.

-- Anon (no@junk.please), June 09, 2004.


Bill, I do not think that you vilify the Holy Father, though I am disturbed by your ready acceptance of the accusation that his position on Iraq is influenced by the bribery of curial officials by Saddam. You did ignore/oppose his position though.

Brian, I said “militantly”, not “militarily”. I don’t think even the fiercest hawks are about to send tanks crashing into the Vatican. :-) But many “Catholics” ignore the Pope, some militantly oppose him, a few vilify him. (I didn’t suggest that ALL who ignore or oppose him necessarily vilify him.) This is neither an exaggeration nor a lie.

Joe, you are right about the difference between absolute moral principles and prudential policies in particular circumstances. It is curious, however, that some are quick to cry “it’s only a prudential matter” re the current war. Others claim to be anti-abortion but oppose the Pope’s “prudential” policy that the best way to minimize abortion is to make it illegal. And both sides condemn each other for not obeying the Pope! Personally I think they should both obey the Pope in both matters, or at least refrain from actively opposing him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.


But many “Catholics” ignore the Pope, some militantly oppose him, a few vilify him. (I didn’t suggest that ALL who ignore or oppose him necessarily vilify him.) This is neither an exaggeration nor a lie.

I agree with that statement Steve. No problem there. My problem is this and it is the last I will say on the subject: You referred to "many" Catholics in this forum who ignore, militantly (not militarily--my bad) oppose, or vilify anything the Pope says not ex cathedra. Such a sweeping statement is simply not true.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 09, 2004.


No I didn’t, Brian. I said “SEVERAL in this forum” . My dictionary defines “several” as “more than two but NOT many”. I guess when I said “anything the Pope says” I needed for clarity to you, to add my implied “which they don’t find convenient to agree with” . It’s absurd to infer I meant they disagree with EVERYTHING the Pope has said which is not a formal ex cathedra statement.

If you claim I made a sweeping statement, you are claiming that there are NOT “more than two” posters in this forum who have ever “ignored, militantly opposed, OR vilified” anything the Pope has said.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.


Why can't this fellow just admit that we here are all faithful Catholics? We all follow and love our Pope. Now by tragic circumstances we must either support or repudiate our President, who has seen the necessity of going to war. The Pope was opposed (no one denies that) to a war. He favored some alternative way to --WHAT?

Stop terrorists from ever again attacking our country?

Bring lasting peace in the world by negotiation?

Keep us all safe from sin?

Bush has the very same desires, IMHO. To stop terrorists.

To bring peace by eliminating evil forces in the middle east, and helping Iraq toward self-government,

To do it with no sinful aims or intentions.

Steve believes that as soon as guns are fired and people die, the sin has been committed. Steve is mistaken.

He believes a peace was available to us without pursuing terrorists where ever they find support or havens; where they have their bases. But NO-- that wouldn't have given us peace. That would have resulted in new and worse attacks against western nations by fanatical Jihadists. Steve must think terrorism is going away of itself, if America appeases the fanatics who launch terror attacks. Or, if Saddam Hussein is allowed to harbor and finance and sooner or later arm them.

So-- the Pope wishes somehow we had been less aggressive. He feels like Steve does. Would John Paul II like to see Americans killed by the thousands in a major city near Steve or me? Would Steve like to see that? Would Steve like to die in a horrible explosion or poison-gas, with his wife and children? Does he think His Holiness would like to see this?

Neither do I. Neither does our President, our coalition or our government. Which explains as clear as day why we must do what has to be done. War on terror. There are now three countries that will not be exporting terror into this country any longer. Because Bush made the right decisisons. I support him; although I have no love for war (as Steve complained) and I have the deepest love for our Pope. I do not support sin any more than Steve & the Pope do. Neither does George W. Bush. We have NOT committed sin in striking at terror in Afghanistan or in Iraq. That's where all the mid east terror-Jihad came from. This is a JUST war.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2004.


“Most of the peace-nik crowd don't even care about peace! Witness their profound SILENCE with respect to real bloodbaths occuring in Africa and Asia... SILENCE with respect to real ongoing conflict in Latin America and massive human rights abuse in North Korea.”

Joe, in fairness, most of the “peace-niks” DO protest about all these things. Perhaps you only notice their presence when they are protesting about something you so passionately believe in.

“duly elected heads of state whose country have been attacked and who have no "higher international forum" to turn to for help”

Joe, you may believe the UN is corrupt or ineffectual, but you can’t claim that it doesn’t exist.

“France, Russia, China … none of them have any interest in protecting America from terrorism - indeed all have long standing animosity towards us. Thus, OUT OF PRUDENCE, you don't place your nation's well being in the hands of those who don't care about your safty and in nations who wouldn't lift a finger to help ”

I think this is pretty unfair to these countries. They’ve had their differences with the US but they all have made it clear that stamping out terrorism is something the whole world must co-operate on, and that a terrorist attack on the US is an attack on all civilized counries. Except for their differences with the US over Iraq they have co-operated closely with the US on very many issues for a long time. The Russians in Moscow and Stavropol knew all about terrorism long before New York and Washington had a taste of it.

“Most of the people who spoke against war were basing their arguments not on questions of principle but on questions of presumed CONSEQUENCES”

No they weren’t. The statements from the Church and those of people in this forum clearly opposed the war overwhelmingly as a matter of PRINCIPLE, not the possible consequences (except insofar as they affected the principles). And I hardly think Mr Bush can claim he successfully predicted the consequences, seeing that many more US lives have been lost AFTER he declared “Mission Accomplished” than before.

“while people are free to disagree, they should at least have the decency to actually respond to his arguments and not just blather on about it being "wrong" as if the assertion of wrongness proves it so!”

Really, Joe. Many people here and elsewhere have gone on ad nauseam about the reasons why the war is wrong. They didn’t just "assert" it was wrong and leave it at that.

“Nowhere did the armed forces declare themselves exempt from international agreements”

What about when Pres Bush withdrew all US involvement in the International Criminal Court to prevent US servicemen being charged with war crimes?

“if you are ever going to rid the world of terrorism, you have to go to the swamp where they fester, drain it, and fundamentally change the political and economic situation - i.e. overthrow the dictatorships and install constitutional democracies with open markets and social freedoms.”

I agree promoting democracy and freedom is important, but it doesn’t guarantee absence of terrorism. We have seen home-grown terrorists in democracies like Japan, Germany, Italy, Ireland, even the USA (Ku Klux Klan etc.) I fail to see what "open markets" has to do with it.

“the nation in question has no freedom of speech (and thus no independent people who can pressure their regime for change!)”

This is a common misconception. Even the most rigid police state depends in the end on the consent of the people who live in it. They can exert pressure in many ways. And especially in these days of instant world communications, dictatorships are even MORE vulnerable to this pressure than democracies are, because they always claim to be giving the people what’s good for them, and are under pressure to prove their legitimacy, because they can’t just point to the results of the last election.

“One can't afford to "forgive"”

On the contrary. Forgiveness is not just something popes do. It’s something all Christians must do. Not only is forgiveness affordable and possible, it’s essential. It’s the only way to ever really “win”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.


“Why can't this fellow just admit that we here are all faithful Catholics? We all follow and love our Pope.” (Eugene)

Because that WOULD be a sweeping statement, and clearly wrong.

“He believes a peace was available to us without pursuing terrorists where ever they find support or havens; where they have their bases….We have NOT committed sin in striking at terror in Afghanistan or in Iraq. That's where all the mid east terror-Jihad came from..”

No they didn’t. None at all came from nor had any training in Iraq. 19 of them came from Saudi Arabia and the other one from Egypt. They had their bases in Afghanistan. But just when we looked like routing them from there, Mr Bush decided it was all too hard and ran away to pursue a personal vendetta against the man who embarrassed his father. Leaving a new Afghan government which controlled barely more than the capital and Al-Quaeda in charge of the mountains.

“I have no love for war”

I have seen no evidence to support this statement, and much which undermines it.

"This is a JUST war."

What was Joe saying about unsupported assertions?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.


Leaving a new Afghan government which controlled barely more than the capital and Al-Quaeda in charge of the mountains.

steve, being a member of the military and especially being overseas where terrorism is a higher threat, i can tell you that you are grossly uneducated about the situation in afghanistan.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 10, 2004.


The definition of a just war is open for discussion.

The American Revolutionary War would be one example.

Were we just to revolt against taxation without representation?

The Pope is right is saying that all efforts should attempted to avoid a war. But, how far should these efforts go.

Iraq had illegally and unjustly invaded one country.

They had attempted to assasinate a former US Head of State (George, the elder).

Did everyone forget about KUWAIT?

I disagree with the Pope on this one. War/revolution is horrible, period, but sometimes needed.

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 10, 2004.


"Joe, in fairness, most of the “peace-niks” DO protest about all these things. Perhaps you only notice their presence when they are protesting about something you so passionately believe in."

Really? When was the last time you saw any peace march waving banners condemning atrocities in Africa or North Korea? The great demonstrations in cities around the world have only one common enemy: Geo. Bush. In vain would you look to see any banner, poster, or sign, any speaker or flashy news item condemning those atrocities.

Where is Michael Moore and Hollywood, where are the Democrats and bloggers when it comes to such bloodbaths in the Sudan and Congo? Where is their outrage when terrorists blow up innocent civilians INDISCRIMINATELY in Israel, Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere? It's the silence of those who don't care.

"Joe, you may believe the UN is corrupt or ineffectual, but you can’t claim that it doesn’t exist."

"I think this is pretty unfair to these countries. They’ve had their differences with the US but they all have made it clear that stamping out terrorism is something the whole world must co-operate on, and that a terrorist attack on the US is an attack on all civilized counries. Except for their differences with the US over Iraq they have co-operated closely with the US on very many issues for a long time. The Russians in Moscow and Stavropol knew all about terrorism long before New York and Washington had a taste of it."

Yes...and???? Your point proves mine. They threatened to veto any resolution that would RESOLVE the problem of Saddam's defiance of UN resolution 1441.

“Most of the people who spoke against war were basing their arguments not on questions of principle but on questions of presumed CONSEQUENCES”

No they weren’t. The statements from the Church and those of people in this forum clearly opposed the war overwhelmingly as a matter of PRINCIPLE, not the possible consequences (except insofar as they affected the principles). And I hardly think Mr Bush can claim he successfully predicted the consequences, seeing that many more US lives have been lost AFTER he declared “Mission Accomplished” than before.

1) what principle was invoked? That all war is intrinsically evil? If so, does this include the battle of Vienna and Lepanto? How about the Russian/Polish war of 1920? No my friend, they didn't invoke principle...they alluded to something without stating it. The whole debate was on the application of principle, the interpretation of the criteria.

"Really, Joe. Many people here and elsewhere have gone on ad nauseam about the reasons why the war is wrong. They didn’t just "assert" it was wrong and leave it at that."

You assert it was illegal because the security council did not approve it...yet a) the UN respects the right of states to their own self-defense...and b) NATO fought in Kosovo without UN mandates - yet no one claimed then or now that that invasion and occupation (still going on) was illegal.

You assert that it was immoral...yet the arguments are premised on the indiscriminate and excessive use of force...which never happened. Your claim that Bush declared an end to hostililities is FALSE. He said an "end to major combat operations" not ALL operations, not end of war... and in May of 2003 he was right. All territory had been occupied, all pitched battles won. What was he supposed to say? If you include the low-level sniping and bombing we've seen minus Fallujah, you'd have to agree that World War II didn't end in April 1945 but somewhere in 1948. “Nowhere did the armed forces declare themselves exempt from international agreements”

What about when Pres Bush withdrew all US involvement in the International Criminal Court to prevent US servicemen being charged with war crimes?" STEVE... the US had never hitherto been party to a treaty claiming the right of foreign courts to so prosecute US soldiers!

“if you are ever going to rid the world of terrorism, you have to go to the swamp where they fester, drain it, and fundamentally change the political and economic situation - i.e. overthrow the dictatorships and install constitutional democracies with open markets and social freedoms.”

I agree promoting democracy and freedom is important, but it doesn’t guarantee absence of terrorism. We have seen home-grown terrorists in democracies like Japan, Germany, Italy, Ireland, even the USA (Ku Klux Klan etc.) I fail to see what "open markets" has to do with it.

In the ramp up to the war everyone was caterwalling about how war won't solve poverty, desperation etc. etc. but it does when it establishes a more perfect civil order! And the terrorism in question isn't the local-mad-cap variety but that with international reach.

“the nation in question has no freedom of speech (and thus no independent people who can pressure their regime for change!)”

This is a common misconception. Even the most rigid police state depends in the end on the consent of the people who live in it. They can exert pressure in many ways. And especially in these days of instant world communications, dictatorships are even MORE vulnerable to this pressure than democracies are, because they always claim to be giving the people what’s good for them, and are under pressure to prove their legitimacy, because they can’t just point to the results of the last election.

Sure...like the North Koreans are just chomping at the bit to rebel and us waving peace banners and singing Kum-ba-ya will tip the scales and topple the regime! You have no idea how horrible police states are... ask any vietnamese friend you have if THEY could overthrow the Hanoi government!

“One can't afford to "forgive"”

On the contrary. Forgiveness is not just something popes do. It’s something all Christians must do. Not only is forgiveness affordable and possible, it’s essential. It’s the only way to ever really “win”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 10, 2004.


When was the last time you saw any peace march waving banners condemning atrocities in Africa or North Korea? The great demonstrations in cities around the world have only one common enemy: Geo. Bush. In vain would you look to see any banner, poster, or sign, any speaker or flashy news item condemning those atrocities.

Very true. These professional protesters don't target dictatorships and oppressive regimes because they believe that the reason for the existence of these regimes is not their evil policies but U.S. hegemony.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 10, 2004.


Brian, you know very well that the US does support and maintain many of these oppressive govts. No, you don’t see a million people marching in the US about the massacres in Sudan, because people generally only go out to march when they think it will influence something their own government is doing. Rather than blame the peaceniks the lack of "flashy news items" , you should blame the media, who only want to tell the stories that (they think) the US people are interested in. Unfortunately the advertisers tell them 99% of the population is not interested in Africans slaughtering each other unless it somehow involves the US.

John, THIS is your justification for the war? “Iraq had illegally and unjustly invaded one country. They had attempted to assassinate a former US Head of State”

The USA has invaded 200 countries, most of them illegally and unjustly. They have attempted to assassinate foreign heads of state scores of times. If someone decided to invade and conquer the USA would that be just?

Joe says “Your claim that Bush declared an end to hostililities is FALSE.” I never made any such claim. I used the expression Bush himself used: “Mission Accomplished”.

““Nowhere did the armed forces declare themselves exempt from international agreements” What about when Pres Bush withdrew all US involvement in the International Criminal Court to prevent US servicemen being charged with war crimes?" STEVE... the US had never hitherto been party to a treaty claiming the right of foreign courts to so prosecute US soldiers!”

Mea culpa. The US did not WITHDRAW from the anti-war-crimes court. They never even ENTERED into the agreement. And this makes it better??

Spare us the insulting rhetoric about “waving peace banners and singing Kum-ba-ya “ . You know very well that’s not what I’m talking about.

“You have no idea how horrible police states are” I have more idea than you think. That's one reason I think the way I do.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.


“ "Leaving a new Afghan government which controlled barely more than the capital and Al-Quaeda in charge of the mountains." steve, being a member of the military and especially being overseas where terrorism is a higher threat, i can tell you that you are grossly uneducated about the situation in afghanistan. -- paul h “

Well then go ahead and "educate" us all Mr GI, and tell us what you think is wrong about my statement? Oh and I forgot to mention that since we handed the Afghan provinces back to the control of the criminal warlords and the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, illegal opium production has boomed. And whatever happened to that election that the Afghans were promised two and a half years ago?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 11, 2004.


You may all speak as much as you want about whatever you want. That doesn't make it true. None of you have any idea what its like in Afghanistan and Iraq. I've served as a Navy Journalist in both countries. After everything that I've witnessed, I have only one thing to say.

There are plenty of reasons against AND supporting what we did in Afghanistan, and there are plenty of reasons against AND supporting what we did in Iraq. Untill everything is done, nobody should be making any definitive statements or claim to know what is going on.

Not even me.

Ghost

-- Ghost (Ghost@Ghost.com), June 12, 2004.


Ghost, Agreed, we get more and more new information every day.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 12, 2004.

When our Holy Father cordially received Yasser Arrafat in the Vatican, it was Christian charity toward a Muslim leader. The Pope didn't know the man he treated kindly would go on from there to claim hundreds of more innocent lives afterward. The Pope didn't know because he acts in good will. He might well believe some things clandestinely planted by Muslim agents. Because, he's a man of good will. He has no spies of his own to keep him abreast of what's happeninhg.

Steve knows all that has happened; and he knows all that can and WILL happen, seemingly.

Above all, Steve knows the bad will is all on one side now: the U.S. & coalition side. The lack of any good will from a terrorist haven is unimportant. With friends like Steve, what do the fanatics need bombs and guns and knives for? Steve would rather hand them the middle east on platters than let our people stand up to the killers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2004.


Yada, yada, yada, Eugene's got no convincing rational argument so he just keeps those old slurs churning out. OK Eugene I'll make you happy - I admit that all of us (about 60% of the US population and I guess about 90% of the world population) who disagree with Bush's war on Iraq only do so because we all love terrorism and dictators and hate the USA.

BTW this is a joke. I know I have to add that for some people here.

Ghost, thanks for your confirmation that paul h cannnot possibly point to anything "uneducated" I said about Afghanistan.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 13, 2004.


One Vatican official told me June 9 that this line “should put to rest” speculation that John Paul himself was not as critical of the Iraq war as some of his aides.

At the same time, the pope extended Bush a “warm welcome,” he received the Medal of Freedom and he praised Bush for “the promotion of moral values in American society, particularly with regard to respect for life and the family.”

Hence, there was enough material for observers to apply whatever spin they fancy.

I spoke to a senior Vatican diplomat June 9, who was at pains to emphasize that the meeting between Bush and the pope had been “very positive,” and that relations with the Americans are “much closer today than one year ago.”

This official conceded that the pope did not hide certain criticisms, but insisted that “there were more points of convergence than difference.” Especially on Iraq, he said, the Holy See supports the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis and is cheered by the administration’s efforts to secure a United Nations resolution recognizing the new government.

The official said that Bush’s meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, and other senior officials dealt with Iraq and the Middle East, including the fate of Christian communities in both places, as well as Africa and religious liberty in China.

Without putting it in quite these terms, what this Vatican diplomat made crystal clear is that the Holy See does not want to be the ecclesiastical equivalent of France. That is, it does not want a reputation for knee-jerk anti-American sentiment, because if Vatican diplomacy is anything, it’s realistic. Realism in the present world situation means you either work with the Americans, or you sit on the sidelines.

That explains, for example, why Navarro went out of his way to play down the critical elements in the pope’s speech. Asked for comment, Navarro said the pope had extended Bush a warm welcome, which was the first line of the speech, and praised him for defense of the family, which came near the end. In effect, he glossed over everything in between.

During his June 4 visit, Bush asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.

Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken.

According to sources, Sodano did not respond to the request.

Sources say Bush made the remark after Sodano thanked him for his stand on the issues of family and life. They also said that while Bush was focusing primarily on the marriage question, he also had in mind other concerns such as abortion and stem cell research.

Bush supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and has urged Congress to take swift action. Since polls show that in several battleground states in the fall election a majority of voters is opposed to gay marriage, some Bush analysts think an aggressive push on the issue will help the president’s prospects.

Another high-ranking Vatican diplomat explained it to me this way several months ago. We want the Americans to succeed, he said, because for the issues we care about -- human dignity, religious liberty, the rule of law -- they’re the only game in town. Our concern is with means, not ends, and we’re trying to encourage America to be the best version of itself.

From John Allen's Word from Rome

Emphasis mine



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.


Thanks, Bill. A fine new post.

Steve,
You haven't any slur from myself to complain about. What I've done is contradict you.

''OK Eugene I'll make you happy, '' You haven't. Continuing: ''-- I admit that all of us (about 60% of the US population and I guess about 90% of the world population) who disagree with Bush's war on Iraq only do so because we all love terrorism and dictators and hate the USA.'' -- You do? I never said that about the population at large. Only about your unworthy opinions on the war in Iraq. They're poor arguments by a mean-spirited young man. In fact, they can't be accurate since you haven't polled 90% of anything at all.

This is also to inform you; A majority opinion can still be incredibly stupid not to mention mistaken. If you take comfort in the world's approval of your errors, you identify yourself with gangs like Sodom & Gommora, the French Revolution, & Hitler's Germany, ''and BTW this is a joke--'' (Yes; Har-har.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 13, 2004.


///

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 13, 2004.

My point is that it is "incredibly stupid" to maintain that most of the USA's population hates the USA and loves terrorism and dictators. Please provide any evidence you have that the majority supported Hitler and Robespierre.

When you contradict me without any real evidence to support your case, but only slurs aaginst my character, you only show the fallacy of your argument.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.


Why do you evade the truth? It's YOU who think one must be wrong because he's in the so-called minority.

I never said ''most of the USA's population'' hates the USA and loves terrorism and dictators. I say once more--

-- denouncing the fall of Saddam is hardly a Christian virtue. But you do. You maintain he shouldn't have been attacked. You equate that with Eugene's ''loving war'', and ''vilifying the Pope''-- conclusions so preposterous you ought to be ashamed. These are real slurs !

I frankly don't care what you think of wars. I only condone JUST war against the most dangerous of regimes. I love peace more than war. I wouldn't even want war with THEM, if it meant a world war could ensue. It would be insane.

Here is a clue; proof, indeed-- that you are persevering against me strictly for personal vain-glory.

You sais-- ''When you contradict me without any real evidence to support your case, but only slurs against my character, you only show the fallacy of your argument.''

As if YOU suffering somebody's contrary opinion were some kind of martyr. Talk about self-absorbed. Your ''character'' wasn't questioned, Steve. You seem a fine gentleman to me. It's only the error you bring to this discussion I've confronted. What do I need evidence for, to tell you you're a pacifist? You know you are. The CASE you want me to give evidence for is well-known. We are at war with terrorism. We were attacked by stealth. We have fought just wars against al Qaeda and its allied states in the middle east. For this we ask EVIDENCE?

I haven't ''slurred'' anybody. Ive defended the progress this country is making against terrorists. You've defended the cause of their friend Saddam. That's plain as day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 14, 2004.


Now I've seen everything. He insists “I haven’t slurred anybody” and in the same breath accuses me (and the 60% of the US population who agree with me that the war was immoral) of “denouncing the fall of Saddam" and "defending the cause of Saddam” . He certainly has chutzpah if nothing else.

“I wouldn't want war with THEM, if it meant a world war could ensue. It would be insane.”

A war which, as even the US government admits, has caused a massive increase in terrorism to ensue, is equally insane. But then he blindly continues to insist that this constitutes “progress” against terrorists! Truth is indeed the first casualty of war.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.


Ok I'm going to be blunt, which I usually try to avoid, but really guys, why do you bother keeping this up ? Is it pride ? Why don't you just drop it already ? It's a worn out old boot. Nothing good is coming from it.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), June 14, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ