Cardinal Says U.S. Treated Saddam 'Like a Cow'

Yahoo! News / Reuters ^ | 12-16-2003 | Philip Pullella

[sitetest]

[LM's note: This thread is degenerating a bit into Catholic bashing and general flaming, and is in risk of being moved to the smokey backroom. Please stop. I've locked it once, and it has continued. Any more and it is gone. Thanks.]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A top Vatican (news - web sites) official said Tuesday he felt pity and compassion for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and criticized the U.S. military for showing video footage of him being treated "like a cow."

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations (news - web sites), told a news conference it would be "illusory" to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.

"I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures," he said.

"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.

Martino was referring to the videotape released by the U.S. military which showed a grubby, bearded and disheveled Saddam receiving a medical examination by a military doctor after his capture in an underground hole Saturday.

Martino was one of the Vatican officials most strongly opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).

"It's true that we should be happy that this (arrest) has come about because it is the watershed that was necessary... we hope that this will not have worse and other serious consequences," Martino said.

"But it is not the total solution to the problems of the Middle East," he said.

Martino said the Vatican hoped the arrest of Saddam "can contribute to promoting peace and the democratization of Iraq."

He added: "But is seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about."

The Vatican did not consider the war in Iraq "a just war" because it was not backed by the United Nations and because the Vatican believed more negotiations were necessary to avoid it.

Martino said the Vatican wanted an "appropriate institution" to put Saddam on trial but he did not elaborate.

U.S. forces were keeping the ousted 66-year-old dictator at a secret location for interrogation before he is put on trial in the months ahead. He could face the death penalty.

The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message, in which Pope John Paul (news - web sites) took a swipe at the United States for invading Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.

[SoothingDave]

Just because the heterodox wish to hijack a word or a term doesn't mean we have to let them.

Oh, all right. Can we still hate "seamless garment?" ;-)

SD

[BlackElk]

Can you point to a single post where have ever called anyone a "butt-boy?"

I leave the pontificating to the authority empowered to do so: the pontiff!

That's ummm, Black Elk: two words in honor of the famed converted pagan shaman and warrior at Little Big Horn who spent his last thirty years as a Roman Catholic lay missionary within Lakota Nation. Also, the punctuation point at the end of your second sentence is supposed to be a question mark and unless the first word of your third sentence is spelled "You're" rather than "your", the sentence makes no sense. Either you need an editor or you may still be blind and not realizing it. Hymn lyrics do not equate to salvation. Well, you asked!

You have every right (within JimRob's rules since it's his living room) to post and I have every right to attack your bona fides in doing so, my fellow ex-counselor. If you were a trial attorney, you already know that as part of cross-examination.

Now, since you are apparently proud of fleeing the world's second oldest profession as am I, you compel me to give you a provisional pass. Someone else who has left lawyering cannot be ALL bad, whatever the temptations to think so. If you keep a civil keyboard on your desk regarding Roman Catholicism, you may find me more congenial. If not, not.

Cute Kitties!

[ninenot]

I would settle for a representative Gummint, not only in Wisconsin, but at the Federal level.

Bush is rapidly becoming more an offender than a help; viz., the last 2 budgets, Education, Medicare "reform," MFN China, and threats regarding "allowing queer marriage state-by-state, signing an expanded "assault weapons" ban, etc., etc., not to mention the egregiously offensive portions of the Patriot Act (sneak-and-peek and 'hold-'em till they rot.)

Doyle is as criminal as Blachojovich (???)--Doyle's sources of income are the Indian Tribes and the NEA subsidiary here, and a couple of minor players....

[F.J. Mitchell]

Not so, Mr. Cardinal. He was merely treated like the COWard that he is.

[dsc]

"I'm fully aware that infallibility only applies in to matters of faith and morals."

But perhaps you're not aware just how narrowly circumscribed that actually is.

"But isn't this the important matters?"

There are many important matters that do not fall into those categories.

"It's just more covering of your rear ends to talk of "sophistication".

Sorry, it's not. The type of sophistication of which I speak is a very real thing, for all that it cannot be smeared on a slide and put under a microscope. A comparison of Thomas Sowell with Michael Moore brings it into sharp relief.

The kind of sophistication I'm talking about is the result of a fuller, deeper examination of issues in all their complexity. It emerges when, for instance, a succession of history's greatest minds and holiest men grapple with an issue in succession over hundreds of years, each refining and building on the work of those who went before. And not through intellect alone, but prayerfully, seeking always to draw closer to God, who is Truth.

The result, guided by the Holy Spirit, is a thing much greater than any one man could accomplish. And it does lead to a certain confidence in the conclusions arrived at, especially when one sees those conclusions borne out time and again in the real world.

It is spiritual riches beyond the imaginings of those who have not been to that well. By comparison, and I say this as one who was raised a protestant and only became Catholic in his late forties, protestants are impoverished, subsisting on a few crumbs fallen from the banquet table.

I don't mean to be offensive to protestants here, but only to point out that all this is waiting for anyone who will receive it.

[Iowegian]

Who said anyone "wasn't believed?"

Not believed, silenced, whatever. It makes no difference if it is not acted upon properly. It covers up a crime. And I only used the abusing priest argument because it is easier to see the affects of the "we are always right" attitude here.

[sitetest]

Dear SD,

"Oh, all right. Can we still hate 'seamless garment?' ;-)"

As long as we're not talking about fashion issues. ;-)


sitetest

[SoothingDave]

How could you leave out Campaign Finance "Reform?"

SD

[SoothingDave]

You honestly believe any parent, told of their child's defilement would shrug and say "well, the priest must be right"?

Please.

SD

[dsc]

"Not even close"

What we have here is this:

Catholics: "We believe this."
Iowegian: "No, you believe that."
Catholics: "No, we believe this."
Iowegian: "No, you believe that."

Any Catholic has run into it time and again. Some people pick up mistaken notions about what Catholics believe, and nothing any Catholic can say will disabuse them of those mistaken notions.

[BlackElk]

Dichotomy:

The Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Simon bar Jonah as Peter, guaranteed by Jesus Christ Himself to persist until the end, and guaranteed by Him that the very gates of hell will NOT prevail against it, on the one hand. On the other, Iowegian and his own personal interpretation of Scripture or that of his pastor who claims Christian authority without apostolic succession. Hmmmmmmmmm. I am going with the RCC and its Teaching Magisterium, etc.

Honestly you are in no danger from us. It is a knowledge of Truth and not some mere sentiment or belief. The RCC is reality and not the theological whim of the week club. Flawed as were Peter, Thomas and Judas in their sinfulness, but Truth unimpaired by novelty. Our Founder certainly has the patent on Truth and we follow Him.

If you hold your errors in good faith, take comfort in the fact that Jesus Christ wept in the Garden of Olives over His knowledge that His flock would not be one flock. That is a lifeboat fo the honestly Protestant.

Once again, I thank my above-referenced co-religionists, ninenot, Soothing Dave, dsc and several others for their truly saintly patience and gentleness in seeking to guide the reformed back to reality and away from the novelty and imagination which the reformed have favored in place of Rome and authority.

[Outlaw76]

You shouldn't assume that the Cardinal doesn't want that.

[Iowegian]

You honestly believe any parent, told of their child's defilement would shrug and say "well, the priest must be right"?

I didn't say anything about parents. Yes I'm sure most, if not all parents will believe their own children. Believing someone else's children over a respected, long time priest is another matter. But again, it matters not if the hierarchy (those with the power) doesn't believe the children or just chooses to not deal with it properly, same affect. These are the people with "we are always right" attitude that is most dangerous.

[Iowegian]

Any Catholic has run into it time and again. Some people pick up mistaken notions about what Catholics believe, and nothing any Catholic can say will disabuse them of those mistaken notions.

Sorry, but you are wrong, I probably know more about what the RC church really believes than most RC's that I know. You don't you what you are talking about. Your problem with me is that I do know what you believe and you don't like how I state it. If you knew my history on FR you might not just dismiss me as "ignorant".

[SoothingDave]

Believing someone else's children over a respected, long time priest is another matter.

As it is with any respected long-time anything. Regardless of any "infallibility."

These are the people with "we are always right" attitude that is most dangerous.

Sure. Power may corrupt. That doesn't void the existence of power to begin with.

SD

[Iowegian]

Whatever, it seems you just bloviate excessively because you like reading your own posts. And I'm sure it makes your Amen corner happy. But it proves nothing about whether your church is "the Truth".

[Iowegian]

That doesn't void the existence of power to begin with.

OK, if you like to keep your head in the sand, you RC's are the ones that will live with the consequences. Changing the power structure seems to be a better solution, or maybe a good start would be to acknowledge that your church can be fallible. Arrogance (Pride) is a sin you know.

[BlackElk]

Your argument seems to be that there is some sort of equivalency in fallibility among Christian churches. This may be stated as "we're all made of the same clay, you know!" which is never much of a winning argument and for good reason.

If (and I do not doubt it) you believe that God is infallible (how could He be otherwise?) and that God's word, the Bible, is inerrant (you are correct but you have to depend upon the traditions of men as translators to say so or upon the Teaching Magisterium which is far more reliable), you are in agreement with Pope St. Pius X's 1907 Syllabus of Errors (Lamentabile Sane) and his brilliant encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis against the Modernist heresy (you would call that heresy secular humanism). They are available in translation for cheap prices (less that $5) from the Daughters of St. Paul. All humans save Jesus Christ and Mary are fallen. Most of us, undoubtedly including thee and me and anyone whom we will encounter on FR are fallible. Within the limits stated by other Catholics above, JP II and his predecessors are not fallible when exercising and invoking the infallibility which attaches as a special charism to the papacy through the grace of God. I leave it to those better schooled in that doctrine than I to provide further refinement. am too busy street fighting to reliably indulge in scholarship on the question.

The fallibility includes all churches other than the RCC. I know you find that arrogant. Many found Cassius Marcellus Clay, later Muhammed Ali, to be arrogant. He said he was humble and that the essence of humility was to know one's strengths and weaknesses and freely and honestly confess both. Since Muhammed Ali called himself the greatest, he assumed the burden of proving it. He did prove it and hence he was, by his insightful definition, a humble man, despite the appearances. The RCC is not arrogant for similarly understanding its role and nature in this world in carrying on in obedience to our Founder. If it is, by some definition, arrogant, it has earned the right to that arrogance. In any event it is the only Christian Church enjoying the fullness of the Truth. We draft no one but you are free to enter with appropriately revised beliefs in accordance with the Truth.

[dsc]

"Just because the heterodox wish to hijack a word or a term doesn't mean we have to let them. "Social justice" is a very nice phrase. It is succinct and filled with meaning. It is an apt term to title the Church's teachings on how to live justly in human society."

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on that.

We are enjoined by the scriptures to love our neighbor, and to be merciful, charitable, and generous. That is the basis for those things, not justice.

In your earlier note you mentioned property rights as one of the components of social justice as you define it.

That is a contradiction.

To say that justice requires us to feed and clothe the poor is to say that the poor have a *right* to the property diverted to their use. But if each man has a right to be secure in his own property, how can other people have a claim on it?

And if those people have a right to that property under the rubric of social justice, then it follows that society has a duty to see justice done. Seeing justice done under those circumstances necessarily involves a redistribution of wealth, which is a violation of property rights.

God has told us that the poor have a moral claim on our love, our charity, our mercy, and our generosity. He has not told us that they have a claim on our property enforceable by third parties.

Satan is very subtle. It is one of his hallmarks that a concept seems noble at first but leads to terrible consequences. To take these concerns out of the realm of the voluntary and put them in the realm of justice not only strips them of spiritual significance and value, and not only devalues the voluntary virtues of love, charity, mercy, and generosity, it sets in place a paradigm that leads to forced redistribution of property as surely as day leads to night.

The concept of "social justice" was excogitated by Satan to lead us away from the Scriptural and spiritual virtues of love, charity, mercy, and generosity, and toward even greater injustice.

Shakespeare often got things right:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

[Iowegian]

Your argument seems to be that there is some sort of equivalency in fallibility among Christian churches.

Yes, the issue is whether you acknowledge your fallibility. God already knows we are all fallible. As for the rest of your post, yes I believe it is arrogant and prideful to believe you have that patent on "the Truth".